andreandre Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 Headlines on the not to be mentioned blogsite after the blogsters were refused entry to a media info meeting.. Same crap from the guy who also said ''we will not pay bail..we will go to jail for our beliefs" A couple of hours inside and ''voila'' home free...... PS they should be more careful with the words they choose...this quote could easily be done.. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CiaranO Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 And apparently toda3y he says no more commenting on his behalf - I wonder who has shut him up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andreandre Posted August 24, 2014 Author Share Posted August 24, 2014 And apparently toda3y he says no more commenting on his behalf - I wonder who has shut him up? Yes, and they need to stop ..have become very aggressive/ridiculous again of late in comments. Also could well be to do with their non entry to the meeting A while ago they were making bold statements basically taking credit for the army take over ..said it was all because the site had said it was a good idea and that the general read the blogs and took the advice... Then defending to the hilt in comment section against anyone who dared make a post against this action by army..really sucked up to the military big time, and now appears it was all in vain..".Go away" they were told. This ''no more commenting'' is as much BS from them as the ''no bail'' and ''you'll have to kill us ""quotes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NomadJoe Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 He meant kill the blog, not literally kill him. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post CiaranO Posted August 24, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted August 24, 2014 He meant kill the blog, not literally kill him. In this day and age its hard to know what he means or is talking about at times 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andreandre Posted August 24, 2014 Author Share Posted August 24, 2014 (edited) He meant kill the blog, not literally kill him. Sorry no coffee this evening..forgive me..EDIT my mistake.. but i take it as it is written here... ''If the one or two people inside the Navy with a grievance against us wish to silence us, they will have to kill us.'' They don't have to kill the blog..its going to die a natural death next Feb when his WP expires anyway.. Edited August 24, 2014 by andreandre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfalfa19 Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 Just more overly dramatic nonsense. The guy needs to just shut his piehole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post NomadJoe Posted August 24, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted August 24, 2014 Just more overly dramatic nonsense. The guy needs to just shut his piehole. As pedantic and squabbling as you may feel he is, let's not forget he has done a lot for publicizing the plight of the the Rohingya people. Probably more than anyone. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 He meant kill the blog, not literally kill him. Calling a newspaper a blog is probably the highest insult one can make. Then again, quite accurate definition of an newspaper which "interviews" itself and nominates itself as the business of the year. I understood that the original report came from Reuters. When PW reposted the Pulitzer award article, did PW publish whole article or only parts of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CiaranO Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 Reuters say that pw published part of the story and took it out of context which is why they claim to not have offered support to the 2. In fairness though what a pole of rubbish on Reuters behalf. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hansgruber Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 He is an old man and has been trying to sell his rag of late. Mid 70's and running a blog and fighting in court with possibility of jail, that's a lot of stress for any man but at his age it's insane. He hasn't got his passport so I guess he hasn't got an option. He is winding down. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Croc Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 He is an old man and has been trying to sell his rag of late. Mid 70's and running a blog and fighting in court with possibility of jail, that's a lot of stress for any man but at his age it's insane. He hasn't got his passport so I guess he hasn't got an option. He is winding down. I'm fairly sure he is 66 or 67. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andreandre Posted August 25, 2014 Author Share Posted August 25, 2014 He meant kill the blog, not literally kill him. Calling a newspaper a blog is probably the highest insult one can make. Then again, quite accurate definition of an newspaper which "interviews" itself and nominates itself as the business of the year. I understood that the original report came from Reuters. When PW reposted the Pulitzer award article, did PW publish whole article or only parts of it? Calling a newspaper a blog is probably the highest insult one can make. You ever see the amount of people that he ripped into and insulted for calling his blog a ''news paper'? It is not a news paper!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hansgruber Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 (edited) He is an old man and has been trying to sell his rag of late. Mid 70's and running a blog and fighting in court with possibility of jail, that's a lot of stress for any man but at his age it's insane. He hasn't got his passport so I guess he hasn't got an option. He is winding down. I'm fairly sure he is 66 or 67. I stand corrected but doesn't take away from my point. He is trying to sell the rag and retire as it's wearing him down. Edited August 25, 2014 by LivinginKata comment removed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivinginKata Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 All the off topic nonsense being removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbo34 Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 I see he's back today, ridiculing his readers, as always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EBlair48 Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 Just more overly dramatic nonsense. The guy needs to just shut his piehole. As pedantic and squabbling as you may feel he is, let's not forget he has done a lot for publicizing the plight of the the Rohingya people. Probably more than anyone. I would give that credit to Chutima, actually. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NomadJoe Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Just more overly dramatic nonsense. The guy needs to just shut his piehole. As pedantic and squabbling as you may feel he is, let's not forget he has done a lot for publicizing the plight of the the Rohingya people. Probably more than anyone. I would give that credit to Chutima, actually. Yeah, I should have said "them." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andreandre Posted August 31, 2014 Author Share Posted August 31, 2014 The comments have not gone away , , in fact seem to have increased and its obvious that the future of one of PW's sponsors [taxi/tuk-tuk mafia bosses] has made the comments even more vitriolic.on the 'jailed drivers story' Dont dare say anything about the hopeful demise of these crooks..Eds will roast you!! I think that he has responded on every single comment so far, with great gusto In part of one comment in defense of these gangsters he points out that prab..organised the drivers in matching tee shirts.[wow thats got to be a good man huh] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CiaranO Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 He hosts advertising from them and who knows what else he is involved with them - he refuses to acknowledge they may be crooks - roasts everyone as you say above - 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 Why to comment on PW site? The editors can fully moderate the discussions and therefore show only the comments which they wish. Move the discussion to their Facebook feed or to twitter. Those are not so easy to moderate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenl Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 He must be thrilled with a thread here on TV discussing him and his site/paper/blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CiaranO Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 He must be thrilled with a thread here on TV discussing him and his site/paper/blog. not so much as he cant moderate it 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 I just wonder what the Finale for PW will be when the work permits expire. I guess there will be a nomination and award for the best newspaper in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post CiaranO Posted August 31, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted August 31, 2014 I just wonder what the Finale for PW will be when the work permits expire. I guess there will be a nomination and award for the best newspaper in the world. he will be ok - i hear they have an opening for guest relation manager at the patong bay garden resort. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EBlair48 Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 Reuters say that pw published part of the story and took it out of context which is why they claim to not have offered support to the 2. In fairness though what a pole of rubbish on Reuters behalf. The way I remember it was text published from Reuters as its own without disclosing the true authors. I suppose the rationale was they had contributed much of the information within the article, but.... Fairly much an unpardonable sin in the journalism world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfalfa19 Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 I see he's back today, ridiculing his readers, as always. Yes, it seems even worse than before, endless bickering with the readers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eezergood Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 Didn't last long........ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CiaranO Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 Unfortunately the guy is unable to keep his ridiculous opinions to himself - if you dont agree with him he will moderate your post - abuse you - and if you do reply moderate again. It is very obvious he is in the back pock of the Keesin clan - another fine story yesterday. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hansgruber Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 Wow. How obvious to remove the advertising for the hotel owned by Pian. It was up yesterday and replaced with twin palms today. He really is just a load of hot air Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now