Lessons on democracy to be taught shortly

[rubl]

As usual, you have chosen to ignore the core of the issue - A source said the person who becomes NRC chairman is expected to have strong ties with the junta or is someone who takes orders from them.

However, I will address the usage of the word "obsequiously = obedient or attentive to an excessive or servile degree"

While the NRC has not started work yet, the other hand-picked body, the NLA, has:

hlttp://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Rubber-stamp-NLA-could-be-waste-of-time-and-money-30241316.htm

Of the 197 members in the assembly, only 17 reserved their right to speak on the budget bill in the first reading on Monday - and none of the 17 hailed from the military. As for the so-called debate, all the NLA members did was to praise or applaud the junta or express their gratitude to the paramount leader for choosing them to sit in this honourable post.

I cannot image a better example of the word "obsequiously"...

First let me correct the link, its

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Rubber-stamp-NLA-could-be-waste-of-time-and-money-30241316.html

As for the rest, it's difficult to say. Depending on view I can imagine someone writing

"With the amount of work already spent by NCPO and government officials, only a few NLA members felt a need to speak at this first reading of the NationalBudget. Some expressed their gratitude to have been chosen to serve their country and the Thai population at the deciding crossroads the country is at now."

Both could be reasonably correct descriptions, but each from a different perspective. IMHO.

PS it would seem that the NCPO is giving the press more freedom. Maybe the NCPO agrees with you and they would like to use this opportunity to remind the NLA of their duties, like thinking, providing input and the like

[rubl]

To answer the first part:

Application was "open" to all Thais, but political bias was a clear requirement, and part of a narrow social social group.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Leaked-NRC-names-disappointing-30244422.html

The 173 names of National Reform Council (NRC) members that were leaked yesterday clearly signify political bias and social exclusion, which could lead to unfair reform proposals that will make all reconciliation efforts fail, academics and politicians said.

Ekachai Chainuvati, deputy dean of law at Siam University, said the list wasn't surprising as the individuals had the "same political stance and military influence". He added that this would result in the exclusion of a large group in Thai society, resulting in "narrow" reform proposals.

To answer the second part:

The reform council should have been inclusive of all social groups, if the actual goal was real reform.

However, the goal is not real reform, but a reform that ensures that the "right" people stay in power.

One of the expected reforms is a diluted legislature. They may go the route of Hong Kong, with pre-screening of candidates, or the Burma route, with 25%(or so) of the legislature apointed by the military. Also, changing the constitution will require a super-majority, so basically no changes without the backing of the military. Unfortunately, the likely result of this, several years down the line, as voters become frustrated that their votes are meaningless, is exactly what is happening in Hong Kong right now.

If the goals were true reform, and true reconcilation, the makeup of the NRC would reflect this. At this point, it does not.

And now for a second opinion.

BTW it's interesting that after all talks about "suppressing freedom of the press" we suddenly have these interesting articles. Almost as if the NCPO tries to create more freedom for itself to really get reforms done even if that goes against some of the 'established' wisdom.

BTW apart from 77 province members, I still wonder about that Surin family which has too many relatives with spare time. Still no name as far as I know.

[rubl]

Oh come on, all Thai had the possibility to apply for a position on the NRC committees. If only proponents of reforms did so, then so be it.

As for contradiction, none. There is a difference in openly lambasting the NCPO and go into a few shoutcasts, and when asked to, in close groups give ideas on reforms and improvements.

Of course we would all like to have the fireworks from being of this year, but that didn't really help the country, now did it? Free speech suppressed with nightly gunfire and grenade lobbing fun.

All Thais "had the possibility to apply for a position on the NRC committees", but who had the possibility of actually being selected?

People are getting locked up for a lot more than "going into a few shoutcasts". And what is wrong with lambasting a government? If it is false, then all the government needs to do is refute the critics point, and leave them with egg on their face. That is how healthy democracy works.

I already made it clear that I have zero sympathy with thugs who use violence to shut down elections and try to install a junta instead.

Well first of all, it would seem that most Thai thought other could do the work as only 7500 or so actually applied or were applied. As for selection, no details yet who, but there was some complaint on a Surin family with lots of willing relatives. Again no details.

People get locked up for much more than only shoutcasts, true. As for lambasting the government, which government? Oh, the NLA. Right. Lambasting them is possible, but should be more than just being negative, a wee bit of constructive comment would be really appreciated. As for healthy democracy, well Thailand never had that, so it never worked like that here.

As for 'thugs' well let's say that there are other examples of anti-government protesters being misunderstood.

You keep banging on about this "constructive criticism is OK" mantra, but "constructive criticism" is a very subjective term. Let's look at how it is being interpreted now. Academics are being hounded by the junta for publishing well thought out essays on why military rule is a bad idea. People are being dragged off the street for silently reading 1984.

And what is there to "misunderstand" about a movement using violence to scare people away from participating in elections?

Suppression indeed, no negative news allowed. Maybe theNation will stop publishing soon ?

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Leaked-NRC-names-disappointing-30244422.html

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Rubber-stamp-NLA-could-be-waste-of-time-and-money-30241316.html

As for violence, well, what do you expect when democratic anti-government protesters get deamonised by the ruling government? When the police start intimidating, walks around in civilian clothing and armed with the bosses denying that. When the first shots are fired against said protesters? Even before Ms. Yingluck dissolved the House.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/30/us-thailand-protest-idUSBRE9AT01S20131130

[tbthailand]

Suppression indeed, no negative news allowed. Maybe theNation will stop publishing soon ?

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Leaked-NRC-names-disappointing-30244422.html

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Rubber-stamp-NLA-could-be-waste-of-time-and-money-30241316.html

As for violence, well, what do you expect when democratic anti-government protesters get deamonised by the ruling government? When the police start intimidating, walks around in civilian clothing and armed with the bosses denying that. When the first shots are fired against said protesters? Even before Ms. Yingluck dissolved the House.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/30/us-thailand-protest-idUSBRE9AT01S20131130

the post and the nation are the primary english-language butt-polishers for the current 'administration', so you don't need to worry that your news will dry up soon.

If you want to label protestors openly calling for a military 'intervention' and blocking elections democratic protestors, that is up to you but don't expect thinking people to believe you.

edit for the crazy, messed-up quote results

Edited September 30, 2014 by tbthailand

[rubl]

Suppression indeed, no negative news allowed. Maybe theNation will stop publishing soon ?

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Leaked-NRC-names-disappointing-30244422.html

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Rubber-stamp-NLA-could-be-waste-of-time-and-money-30241316.html

As for violence, well, what do you expect when democratic anti-government protesters get deamonised by the ruling government? When the police start intimidating, walks around in civilian clothing and armed with the bosses denying that. When the first shots are fired against said protesters? Even before Ms. Yingluck dissolved the House.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/30/us-thailand-protest-idUSBRE9AT01S20131130

the post and the nation are the primary english-language butt-polishers for the current 'administration', so you don't need to worry that your news will dry up soon.

If you want to label protestors openly calling for a military 'intervention' and blocking elections democratic protestors, that is up to you but don't expect thinking people to believe you.

For "butt-polishers" it's interesting their negative views are used to confirm other negative views. Maybe the wrong polish ?

So, you seem to ignore the deadly clash BEFORE the House was dissolved.

Anyway, did you know even the Yingluck asked for military intervention ? I think that was after the police failed miserably in their suppression of anti-government protesters. In the May the 'unclear status' ex-MoFA even asked the military to instate Military Law. Maybe to crackdown on all those anti-government protesters who dropped grenades on themselves. Maybe to conducts elections as especially a 'diplomatic oriented' MoFA would know that the UN likes that.

Edited September 30, 2014 by rubl

[tbthailand]

Suppression indeed, no negative news allowed. Maybe theNation will stop publishing soon ?

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Leaked-NRC-names-disappointing-30244422.html

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Rubber-stamp-NLA-could-be-waste-of-time-and-money-30241316.html

As for violence, well, what do you expect when democratic anti-government protesters get deamonised by the ruling government? When the police start intimidating, walks around in civilian clothing and armed with the bosses denying that. When the first shots are fired against said protesters? Even before Ms. Yingluck dissolved the House.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/30/us-thailand-protest-idUSBRE9AT01S20131130

the post and the nation are the primary english-language butt-polishers for the current 'administration', so you don't need to worry that your news will dry up soon.

If you want to label protestors openly calling for a military 'intervention' and blocking elections democratic protestors, that is up to you but don't expect thinking people to believe you.

For "butt-polishers" it's interesting their negative views are used to confirm other negative views. Maybe the wrong polish ?

So, you seem to ignore the deadly clash BEFORE the House was dissolved.

Anyway, did you know even the Yingluck asked for military intervention ? I think that was after the police failed miserably in their suppression of anti-government protesters. In the May the 'unclear status' ex-MoFA even asked the military to instate Military Law. Maybe to crackdown on all those anti-government protesters who dropped grenades on themselves. Maybe to conducts elections as especially a 'diplomatic oriented' MoFA would know that the UN likes that.

you apparently really don't understand the most basic posts. or - as I speculated before - it's just your standard MO to purposefully pretend to misunderstand.

FWIW, 'intervention' is the NCPO's preferred term for coup. Maybe that makes my post clearer to you, maybe not.

as for butt-polishing, you can pretend that the nation and the post are being critical of the NCPO rather than functioning as their apologists - certainly they would like you to think that. You can pretend that is true because you seem to be excellent at pretending. Other sites - among those that are actually still online of course - which are actually critical of the NCPO have had their content blocked and have even completely disappeared for days at a time. And that is after they try to comply with the NCPO's current 'rules' for journalism.

I'm going to stop at this point, because I feel a 'let's get back to the topic which is ....' coming soon.

[heybruce]

Please remind me, wasn't the application to the NRC committees open to all Thai?

BTW how do you think the NRC selection committee should have been put together?

All Iranians have a right to apply to run for political office, but the clerics decide who is allowed to run. Most of the outside world considers this undemocratic, but perhaps not China. They've decided on a similar model for elections in Hong Kong.

As I've stated before, I think there should have been an election in July. The Democrats could have campaigned on the promise of reform. If they or some combination of parties in favor of reform became the majority they could have decided how to reform once in government.

Of course for all this to have happened the military would have had to make it clear that they wanted illegal protests ended and they wanted a free, internationally monitored election. I think that just a clear statement to this effect would have been enough, but in the unlikely event that the protesters refused to leave areas they illegally occupied the military could have taken the same actions they took in 2010, only this time to defend an elected government (or the caretaker government appointed by the elected government). A lot of people pretend that the only options during the protests were continued chaos or a military coup. Actually there were many other options.

So in answer to both your questions, I don't think the NRC is unnecessary, I think reform could have been handled democratically, and I think it still can.

Well, the Yingluck Administration with Ms. Yingluck doing all the 'feel good' talks and presentations wasn't into reforms. Even their belated attempt was just window dressing. As such Thai democracy couldn't handle and Thai politicians didn't want to handle 'tricky' issues.

It's interesting that the Minimum Wage was introduced by a junta and that the 'property and inheritance tax' is introduced AGAIN by a junta after an appointed government was told to drop it as it should be handled by an elected government only. It seems only juntas and their appointed governments are able to push through reforms good for the common people, but opposed by politicians.

Curious, ain't it.

Not the least bit curious, you ignored my post and the OP and wrote irrelevant material as a distraction. Standard procedure for you.

[brucec64]

As usual, you have chosen to ignore the core of the issue - A source said the person who becomes NRC chairman is expected to have strong ties with the junta or is someone who takes orders from them.

However, I will address the usage of the word "obsequiously = obedient or attentive to an excessive or servile degree"

While the NRC has not started work yet, the other hand-picked body, the NLA, has:

hlttp://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Rubber-stamp-NLA-could-be-waste-of-time-and-money-30241316.htm

Of the 197 members in the assembly, only 17 reserved their right to speak on the budget bill in the first reading on Monday - and none of the 17 hailed from the military. As for the so-called debate, all the NLA members did was to praise or applaud the junta or express their gratitude to the paramount leader for choosing them to sit in this honourable post.

I cannot image a better example of the word "obsequiously"...

First let me correct the link, its

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Rubber-stamp-NLA-could-be-waste-of-time-and-money-30241316.html

As for the rest, it's difficult to say. Depending on view I can imagine someone writing

"With the amount of work already spent by NCPO and government officials, only a few NLA members felt a need to speak at this first reading of the NationalBudget. Some expressed their gratitude to have been chosen to serve their country and the Thai population at the deciding crossroads the country is at now."

Both could be reasonably correct descriptions, but each from a different perspective. IMHO.

PS it would seem that the NCPO is giving the press more freedom. Maybe the NCPO agrees with you and they would like to use this opportunity to remind the NLA of their duties, like thinking, providing input and the like

But, it was not written that way...

However, you have a very bright future ahead writing press releases for despot rulers, or marketing. The way you have written it is commonly referred to as "putting lipstick on a pig".

If somebody else wrote that statement, would you buy it? Seriously, you have written some intelligent posts, but this must be a joke. A 2.6 trillion baht budget, put together by a government in their first couple of months of power, so perfect that not a single change or comment was necessary? Whether or not we agree or disagree on the junta, can you really put forward that this is good governance?

[rubl]

you apparently really don't understand the most basic posts. or - as I speculated before - it's just your standard MO to purposefully pretend to misunderstand.

FWIW, 'intervention' is the NCPO's preferred term for coup. Maybe that makes my post clearer to you, maybe not.

as for butt-polishing, you can pretend that the nation and the post are being critical of the NCPO rather than functioning as their apologists - certainly they would like you to think that. You can pretend that is true because you seem to be excellent at pretending. Other sites - among those that are actually still online of course - which are actually critical of the NCPO have had their content blocked and have even completely disappeared for days at a time. And that is after they try to comply with the NCPO's current 'rules' for journalism.

I'm going to stop at this point, because I feel a 'let's get back to the topic which is ....' coming soon.

The last desperate attempt, I'd call it. Obviously anyone not agreeing with your point of view and/or having completely different views AND is able to clearly indicate why your postings are only suggestive rubbish, is to be further denigrated and in a huff of glorious, barely concealed pain at such indignity, further ignored.

Well, one can only hope, can't one?

The two articles I provided links to (in part thanks to bruce64 ) seem to show a clear distrust of the NCPO and the actions of 'its' NLA. I wouldn't call that "butt polishing" (apart from the fact that I only very rarely use such succinct descriptions).

So, thanks for no longer trying to obfuscate, tell half-truth and whole lies and I will especially be pleased to be no longer insulted by you. Now I'll only have to work on the others.

Edited September 30, 2014 by rubl

[rubl]

Please remind me, wasn't the application to the NRC committees open to all Thai?

BTW how do you think the NRC selection committee should have been put together?

All Iranians have a right to apply to run for political office, but the clerics decide who is allowed to run. Most of the outside world considers this undemocratic, but perhaps not China. They've decided on a similar model for elections in Hong Kong.

As I've stated before, I think there should have been an election in July. The Democrats could have campaigned on the promise of reform. If they or some combination of parties in favor of reform became the majority they could have decided how to reform once in government.

Of course for all this to have happened the military would have had to make it clear that they wanted illegal protests ended and they wanted a free, internationally monitored election. I think that just a clear statement to this effect would have been enough, but in the unlikely event that the protesters refused to leave areas they illegally occupied the military could have taken the same actions they took in 2010, only this time to defend an elected government (or the caretaker government appointed by the elected government). A lot of people pretend that the only options during the protests were continued chaos or a military coup. Actually there were many other options.

So in answer to both your questions, I don't think the NRC is unnecessary, I think reform could have been handled democratically, and I think it still can.

Well, the Yingluck Administration with Ms. Yingluck doing all the 'feel good' talks and presentations wasn't into reforms. Even their belated attempt was just window dressing. As such Thai democracy couldn't handle and Thai politicians didn't want to handle 'tricky' issues.

It's interesting that the Minimum Wage was introduced by a junta and that the 'property and inheritance tax' is introduced AGAIN by a junta after an appointed government was told to drop it as it should be handled by an elected government only. It seems only juntas and their appointed governments are able to push through reforms good for the common people, but opposed by politicians.

Curious, ain't it.

Not the least bit curious, you ignored my post and the OP and wrote irrelevant material as a distraction. Standard procedure for you.

The famous (or should that be notorious?) head-in-the-sand, this doesn't fit my ideas and program, ignore it attitude.

Painful to have to acknowledge that aspects of democracy are brought to you by junta's. Painful the reference to "leave it to elected governments who ignore it".

Well, just another lesson in democracy I guess. At least for those who are open minded enough.

[rubl]

As usual, you have chosen to ignore the core of the issue - A source said the person who becomes NRC chairman is expected to have strong ties with the junta or is someone who takes orders from them.

However, I will address the usage of the word "obsequiously = obedient or attentive to an excessive or servile degree"

While the NRC has not started work yet, the other hand-picked body, the NLA, has:

hlttp://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Rubber-stamp-NLA-could-be-waste-of-time-and-money-30241316.htm

Of the 197 members in the assembly, only 17 reserved their right to speak on the budget bill in the first reading on Monday - and none of the 17 hailed from the military. As for the so-called debate, all the NLA members did was to praise or applaud the junta or express their gratitude to the paramount leader for choosing them to sit in this honourable post.

I cannot image a better example of the word "obsequiously"...

First let me correct the link, its

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Rubber-stamp-NLA-could-be-waste-of-time-and-money-30241316.html

As for the rest, it's difficult to say. Depending on view I can imagine someone writing

"With the amount of work already spent by NCPO and government officials, only a few NLA members felt a need to speak at this first reading of the NationalBudget. Some expressed their gratitude to have been chosen to serve their country and the Thai population at the deciding crossroads the country is at now."

Both could be reasonably correct descriptions, but each from a different perspective. IMHO.

PS it would seem that the NCPO is giving the press more freedom. Maybe the NCPO agrees with you and they would like to use this opportunity to remind the NLA of their duties, like thinking, providing input and the like

But, it was not written that way...

However, you have a very bright future ahead writing press releases for despot rulers, or marketing. The way you have written it is commonly referred to as "putting lipstick on a pig".

If somebody else wrote that statement, would you buy it? Seriously, you have written some intelligent posts, but this must be a joke. A 2.6 trillion baht budget, put together by a government in their first couple of months of power, so perfect that not a single change or comment was necessary? Whether or not we agree or disagree on the junta, can you really put forward that this is good governance?

It wasn't by theNation, but as we can see in descriptions of the same event but made by opposing camps in other countries, not only possible, but actually happening.

Mind you, I didn't say my description was correct, neither that theNation description was correct. Just that such description depends on ones views. I didn't even say that I described my view.

As for the National Budget for 2014/2015 iit had been worked on for a few months, it had seen changes, it had seen limitations due to the need to repay some, the need to limit the deficit. Also one would assume, (rightly or wrongly) that there has been much less political haggling. Difficult to prove, difficult to disprove.

[brucec64]

As usual, you have chosen to ignore the core of the issue - A source said the person who becomes NRC chairman is expected to have strong ties with the junta or is someone who takes orders from them.

However, I will address the usage of the word "obsequiously = obedient or attentive to an excessive or servile degree"

While the NRC has not started work yet, the other hand-picked body, the NLA, has:

hlttp://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Rubber-stamp-NLA-could-be-waste-of-time-and-money-30241316.htm

Of the 197 members in the assembly, only 17 reserved their right to speak on the budget bill in the first reading on Monday - and none of the 17 hailed from the military. As for the so-called debate, all the NLA members did was to praise or applaud the junta or express their gratitude to the paramount leader for choosing them to sit in this honourable post.

I cannot image a better example of the word "obsequiously"...

First let me correct the link, its

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Rubber-stamp-NLA-could-be-waste-of-time-and-money-30241316.html

As for the rest, it's difficult to say. Depending on view I can imagine someone writing

"With the amount of work already spent by NCPO and government officials, only a few NLA members felt a need to speak at this first reading of the NationalBudget. Some expressed their gratitude to have been chosen to serve their country and the Thai population at the deciding crossroads the country is at now."

Both could be reasonably correct descriptions, but each from a different perspective. IMHO.

PS it would seem that the NCPO is giving the press more freedom. Maybe the NCPO agrees with you and they would like to use this opportunity to remind the NLA of their duties, like thinking, providing input and the like

But, it was not written that way...

However, you have a very bright future ahead writing press releases for despot rulers, or marketing. The way you have written it is commonly referred to as "putting lipstick on a pig".

If somebody else wrote that statement, would you buy it? Seriously, you have written some intelligent posts, but this must be a joke. A 2.6 trillion baht budget, put together by a government in their first couple of months of power, so perfect that not a single change or comment was necessary? Whether or not we agree or disagree on the junta, can you really put forward that this is good governance?

It wasn't by theNation, but as we can see in descriptions of the same event but made by opposing camps in other countries, not only possible, but actually happening.

Mind you, I didn't say my description was correct, neither that theNation description was correct. Just that such description depends on ones views. I didn't even say that I described my view.

As for the National Budget for 2014/2015 iit had been worked on for a few months, it had seen changes, it had seen limitations due to the need to repay some, the need to limit the deficit. Also one would assume, (rightly or wrongly) that there has been much less political haggling. Difficult to prove, difficult to disprove.

The only thing this proves is we are now back to the original assertion:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Rubber-stamp-NLA-could-be-waste-of-time-and-money-30241316.html

...that the rubber stamp NLA is a waste of time.

[heybruce]

All Iranians have a right to apply to run for political office, but the clerics decide who is allowed to run. Most of the outside world considers this undemocratic, but perhaps not China. They've decided on a similar model for elections in Hong Kong.

As I've stated before, I think there should have been an election in July. The Democrats could have campaigned on the promise of reform. If they or some combination of parties in favor of reform became the majority they could have decided how to reform once in government.

Of course for all this to have happened the military would have had to make it clear that they wanted illegal protests ended and they wanted a free, internationally monitored election. I think that just a clear statement to this effect would have been enough, but in the unlikely event that the protesters refused to leave areas they illegally occupied the military could have taken the same actions they took in 2010, only this time to defend an elected government (or the caretaker government appointed by the elected government). A lot of people pretend that the only options during the protests were continued chaos or a military coup. Actually there were many other options.

So in answer to both your questions, I don't think the NRC is unnecessary, I think reform could have been handled democratically, and I think it still can.

Well, the Yingluck Administration with Ms. Yingluck doing all the 'feel good' talks and presentations wasn't into reforms. Even their belated attempt was just window dressing. As such Thai democracy couldn't handle and Thai politicians didn't want to handle 'tricky' issues.

It's interesting that the Minimum Wage was introduced by a junta and that the 'property and inheritance tax' is introduced AGAIN by a junta after an appointed government was told to drop it as it should be handled by an elected government only. It seems only juntas and their appointed governments are able to push through reforms good for the common people, but opposed by politicians.

Curious, ain't it.

Not the least bit curious, you ignored my post and the OP and wrote irrelevant material as a distraction. Standard procedure for you.

The famous (or should that be notorious?) head-in-the-sand, this doesn't fit my ideas and program, ignore it attitude.

Painful to have to acknowledge that aspects of democracy are brought to you by junta's. Painful the reference to "leave it to elected governments who ignore it".

Well, just another lesson in democracy I guess. At least for those who are open minded enough.

Short summary:

The OP is about "Lessons on democracy".

You swing it around to the NRC.

I ask you about the NRC selection process.

You ask how I think the NRC selection process should be.

I respond that I think that democracy should have been allowed to run its course and there shouldn't have been a NRC.

You respond with completely off-topic stuff about Yingluck, minimum wage, inheritance tax, and maybe other irrelevant stuff.

I point out that you ignored the OP and my post.

You respond with accusations that I have my head in the sand because I won't follow you off-topic.

My reply? That you are continuing to go off-topic and avoid my post when you have no reply.

I eagerly await your further off-topic reply. Though I may notify the moderator when you do.

[tbthailand]

you apparently really don't understand the most basic posts. or - as I speculated before - it's just your standard MO to purposefully pretend to misunderstand.

FWIW, 'intervention' is the NCPO's preferred term for coup. Maybe that makes my post clearer to you, maybe not.

as for butt-polishing, you can pretend that the nation and the post are being critical of the NCPO rather than functioning as their apologists - certainly they would like you to think that. You can pretend that is true because you seem to be excellent at pretending. Other sites - among those that are actually still online of course - which are actually critical of the NCPO have had their content blocked and have even completely disappeared for days at a time. And that is after they try to comply with the NCPO's current 'rules' for journalism.

I'm going to stop at this point, because I feel a 'let's get back to the topic which is ....' coming soon.

The last desperate attempt, I'd call it. Obviously anyone not agreeing with your point of view and/or having completely different views AND is able to clearly indicate why your postings are only suggestive rubbish, is to be further denigrated and in a huff of glorious, barely concealed pain at such indignity, further ignored.

Well, one can only hope, can't one?

The two articles I provided links to (in part thanks to bruce64 ) seem to show a clear distrust of the NCPO and the actions of 'its' NLA. I wouldn't call that "butt polishing" (apart from the fact that I only very rarely use such succinct descriptions).

So, thanks for no longer trying to obfuscate, tell half-truth and whole lies and I will especially be pleased to be no longer insulted by you. Now I'll only have to work on the others.

AND is able to clearly indicate why your postings are only suggestive rubbish

well now, that is where you fall down, isn't it? You simply post garbled nonsense and say "voila!" As for your repetitive claim that I post half-truths and lies, well repeating your nonsense doesn't make it true. On the other hand, you have proven time and time again that you don't actually understand what has been posted - and that is not limited to my posts.

And from this point please try to not troll my posts as is your habit - as you noted, there are plenty of other posters to troll so you should be able to keep busy.

[rubl]

It wasn't by theNation, but as we can see in descriptions of the same event but made by opposing camps in other countries, not only possible, but actually happening.

Mind you, I didn't say my description was correct, neither that theNation description was correct. Just that such description depends on ones views. I didn't even say that I described my view.

As for the National Budget for 2014/2015 iit had been worked on for a few months, it had seen changes, it had seen limitations due to the need to repay some, the need to limit the deficit. Also one would assume, (rightly or wrongly) that there has been much less political haggling. Difficult to prove, difficult to disprove.

The only thing this proves is we are now back to the original assertion:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Rubber-stamp-NLA-could-be-waste-of-time-and-money-30241316.html

...that the rubber stamp NLA is a waste of time.

Actually I thought we had progressed a bit further.

"descriptions of the same event but made by opposing camps"

[rubl]

Short summary:

The OP is about "Lessons on democracy".

You swing it around to the NRC.

I ask you about the NRC selection process.

You ask how I think the NRC selection process should be.

I respond that I think that democracy should have been allowed to run its course and there shouldn't have been a NRC.

You respond with completely off-topic stuff about Yingluck, minimum wage, inheritance tax, and maybe other irrelevant stuff.

I point out that you ignored the OP and my post.

You respond with accusations that I have my head in the sand because I won't follow you off-topic.

My reply? That you are continuing to go off-topic and avoid my post when you have no reply.

I eagerly await your further off-topic reply. Though I may notify the moderator when you do.

Short summary:

Thailandnoob asked "what about a referendum" and i responded that with the NRC and the process that would seem a waste of time and money.

Then you butting in going deeper in the NRC, and dragging the discussion further off topic till the point you seem to have felt 'lost' and 'assured' me you had enough.

It would seem you didn't, you just go on and on zigzagging along, baiting, distracting. I hope you have fun.

So, be my guest, report to a mod.

Edited October 1, 2014 by rubl

[rubl]

you apparently really don't understand the most basic posts. or - as I speculated before - it's just your standard MO to purposefully pretend to misunderstand.

FWIW, 'intervention' is the NCPO's preferred term for coup. Maybe that makes my post clearer to you, maybe not.

as for butt-polishing, you can pretend that the nation and the post are being critical of the NCPO rather than functioning as their apologists - certainly they would like you to think that. You can pretend that is true because you seem to be excellent at pretending. Other sites - among those that are actually still online of course - which are actually critical of the NCPO have had their content blocked and have even completely disappeared for days at a time. And that is after they try to comply with the NCPO's current 'rules' for journalism.

I'm going to stop at this point, because I feel a 'let's get back to the topic which is ....' coming soon.

The last desperate attempt, I'd call it. Obviously anyone not agreeing with your point of view and/or having completely different views AND is able to clearly indicate why your postings are only suggestive rubbish, is to be further denigrated and in a huff of glorious, barely concealed pain at such indignity, further ignored.

Well, one can only hope, can't one?

The two articles I provided links to (in part thanks to bruce64 ) seem to show a clear distrust of the NCPO and the actions of 'its' NLA. I wouldn't call that "butt polishing" (apart from the fact that I only very rarely use such succinct descriptions).

So, thanks for no longer trying to obfuscate, tell half-truth and whole lies and I will especially be pleased to be no longer insulted by you. Now I'll only have to work on the others.

AND is able to clearly indicate why your postings are only suggestive rubbish

well now, that is where you fall down, isn't it? You simply post garbled nonsense and say "voila!" As for your repetitive claim that I post half-truths and lies, well repeating your nonsense doesn't make it true. On the other hand, you have proven time and time again that you don't actually understand what has been posted - and that is not limited to my posts.

And from this point please try to not troll my posts as is your habit - as you noted, there are plenty of other posters to troll so you should be able to keep busy.

With you, yes, but than those who keep their head in the sand will not hear.

You have proven again and again to deliberately post half-truths, insinuations, almost clear lies. You have proven to be an annoying baiter.

Don't worry though, still love you

Edited October 1, 2014 by rubl

[heybruce]

Short summary:

The OP is about "Lessons on democracy".

You swing it around to the NRC.

I ask you about the NRC selection process.

You ask how I think the NRC selection process should be.

I respond that I think that democracy should have been allowed to run its course and there shouldn't have been a NRC.

You respond with completely off-topic stuff about Yingluck, minimum wage, inheritance tax, and maybe other irrelevant stuff.

I point out that you ignored the OP and my post.

You respond with accusations that I have my head in the sand because I won't follow you off-topic.

My reply? That you are continuing to go off-topic and avoid my post when you have no reply.

I eagerly await your further off-topic reply. Though I may notify the moderator when you do.

Short summary:

Thailandnoob asked "what about a referendum" and i responded that with the NRC and the process that would seem a waste of time and money.

Then you butting in going deeper in the NRC, and dragging the discussion further off topic till the point you seem to have felt 'lost' and 'assured' me you had enough.

It would seem you didn't, you just go on and on zigzagging along, baiting, distracting. I hope you have fun.

So, be my guest, report to a mod.

rubl, you shouldn't attempt to re-write history when it's in print on the same thread. I challenged you assumption that the NRC would be representative, and you responded with:

"Please remind me, wasn't the application to the NRC committees open to all Thai?

BTW how do you think the NRC selection committee should have been put together?"

I replied with:

"All Iranians have a right to apply to run for political office, but the clerics decide who is allowed to run. Most of the outside world considers this undemocratic, but perhaps not China. They've decided on a similar model for elections in Hong Kong.

As I've stated before, I think there should have been an election in July. The Democrats could have campaigned on the promise of reform. If they or some combination of parties in favor of reform became the majority they could have decided how to reform once in government.

Of course for all this to have happened the military would have had to make it clear that they wanted illegal protests ended and they wanted a free, internationally monitored election. I think that just a clear statement to this effect would have been enough, but in the unlikely event that the protesters refused to leave areas they illegally occupied the military could have taken the same actions they took in 2010, only this time to defend an elected government (or the caretaker government appointed by the elected government). A lot of people pretend that the only options during the protests were continued chaos or a military coup. Actually there were many other options.

So in answer to both your questions, I don't think the NRC is unnecessary, I think reform could have been handled democratically, and I think it still can."

Your reply to this was completely irrelevant, and had nothing to do with the OP, what I wrote, or anything in between. It was:

"Well, the Yingluck Administration with Ms. Yingluck doing all the 'feel good' talks and presentations wasn't into reforms. Even their belated attempt was just window dressing. As such Thai democracy couldn't handle and Thai politicians didn't want to handle 'tricky' issues.

It's interesting that the Minimum Wage was introduced by a junta and that the 'property and inheritance tax' is introduced AGAIN by a junta after an appointed government was told to drop it as it should be handled by an elected government only. It seems only juntas and their appointed governments are able to push through reforms good for the common people, but opposed by politicians.

Curious, ain't it."

I can only assume you went ridiculously off-topic because you could not longer defend your ridiculous assumption that the NRC would automatically be representative. I declined to take your off-topic bait, and wrote:

"Not the least bit curious, you ignored my post and the OP and wrote irrelevant material as a distraction. Standard procedure for you."

At this point you replied with further off-topic nonsense. I won't bother repeating it. Now you accuse me of baiting and distracting, when clearly that was the intent of your posts.

Do you want to get back to the NRC selection process? Do you want to explain what the minimum wage and inheritance tax have to do with the OP or the NRC? Can you post something remotely on-topic?

[rubl]

Short summary:

The OP is about "Lessons on democracy".

You swing it around to the NRC.

I ask you about the NRC selection process.

You ask how I think the NRC selection process should be.

I respond that I think that democracy should have been allowed to run its course and there shouldn't have been a NRC.

You respond with completely off-topic stuff about Yingluck, minimum wage, inheritance tax, and maybe other irrelevant stuff.

I point out that you ignored the OP and my post.

You respond with accusations that I have my head in the sand because I won't follow you off-topic.

My reply? That you are continuing to go off-topic and avoid my post when you have no reply.

I eagerly await your further off-topic reply. Though I may notify the moderator when you do.

Short summary:

Thailandnoob asked "what about a referendum" and i responded that with the NRC and the process that would seem a waste of time and money.

Then you butting in going deeper in the NRC, and dragging the discussion further off topic till the point you seem to have felt 'lost' and 'assured' me you had enough.

It would seem you didn't, you just go on and on zigzagging along, baiting, distracting. I hope you have fun.

So, be my guest, report to a mod.

rubl, you shouldn't attempt to re-write history when it's in print on the same thread. I challenged you assumption that the NRC would be representative, and you responded with:

"Please remind me, wasn't the application to the NRC committees open to all Thai?

BTW how do you think the NRC selection committee should have been put together?"

I replied with:

"All Iranians have a right to apply to run for political office, but the clerics decide who is allowed to run. Most of the outside world considers this undemocratic, but perhaps not China. They've decided on a similar model for elections in Hong Kong.

As I've stated before, I think there should have been an election in July. The Democrats could have campaigned on the promise of reform. If they or some combination of parties in favor of reform became the majority they could have decided how to reform once in government.

Of course for all this to have happened the military would have had to make it clear that they wanted illegal protests ended and they wanted a free, internationally monitored election. I think that just a clear statement to this effect would have been enough, but in the unlikely event that the protesters refused to leave areas they illegally occupied the military could have taken the same actions they took in 2010, only this time to defend an elected government (or the caretaker government appointed by the elected government). A lot of people pretend that the only options during the protests were continued chaos or a military coup. Actually there were many other options.

So in answer to both your questions, I don't think the NRC is unnecessary, I think reform could have been handled democratically, and I think it still can."

Your reply to this was completely irrelevant, and had nothing to do with the OP, what I wrote, or anything in between. It was:

"Well, the Yingluck Administration with Ms. Yingluck doing all the 'feel good' talks and presentations wasn't into reforms. Even their belated attempt was just window dressing. As such Thai democracy couldn't handle and Thai politicians didn't want to handle 'tricky' issues.

It's interesting that the Minimum Wage was introduced by a junta and that the 'property and inheritance tax' is introduced AGAIN by a junta after an appointed government was told to drop it as it should be handled by an elected government only. It seems only juntas and their appointed governments are able to push through reforms good for the common people, but opposed by politicians.

Curious, ain't it."

I can only assume you went ridiculously off-topic because you could not longer defend your ridiculous assumption that the NRC would automatically be representative. I declined to take your off-topic bait, and wrote:

"Not the least bit curious, you ignored my post and the OP and wrote irrelevant material as a distraction. Standard procedure for you."

At this point you replied with further off-topic nonsense. I won't bother repeating it. Now you accuse me of baiting and distracting, when clearly that was the intent of your posts.

Do you want to get back to the NRC selection process? Do you want to explain what the minimum wage and inheritance tax have to do with the OP or the NRC? Can you post something remotely on-topic?

Lessons in democracy: allowing Heybruce to zigzag along, profess indignent disbelieve anyone would even contemplate to not agree with him and refusing to answers irrelevant and/or loaded questions.

Next we'll discuss the advantage of 'red-shirt schools of democracy' to properly teach adults how to think.

[heybruce]

Short summary:

The OP is about "Lessons on democracy".

You swing it around to the NRC.

I ask you about the NRC selection process.

You ask how I think the NRC selection process should be.

I respond that I think that democracy should have been allowed to run its course and there shouldn't have been a NRC.

You respond with completely off-topic stuff about Yingluck, minimum wage, inheritance tax, and maybe other irrelevant stuff.

I point out that you ignored the OP and my post.

You respond with accusations that I have my head in the sand because I won't follow you off-topic.

My reply? That you are continuing to go off-topic and avoid my post when you have no reply.

I eagerly await your further off-topic reply. Though I may notify the moderator when you do.

Short summary:

Thailandnoob asked "what about a referendum" and i responded that with the NRC and the process that would seem a waste of time and money.

Then you butting in going deeper in the NRC, and dragging the discussion further off topic till the point you seem to have felt 'lost' and 'assured' me you had enough.

It would seem you didn't, you just go on and on zigzagging along, baiting, distracting. I hope you have fun.

So, be my guest, report to a mod.

rubl, you shouldn't attempt to re-write history when it's in print on the same thread. I challenged you assumption that the NRC would be representative, and you responded with:

"Please remind me, wasn't the application to the NRC committees open to all Thai?

BTW how do you think the NRC selection committee should have been put together?"

I replied with:

"All Iranians have a right to apply to run for political office, but the clerics decide who is allowed to run. Most of the outside world considers this undemocratic, but perhaps not China. They've decided on a similar model for elections in Hong Kong.

As I've stated before, I think there should have been an election in July. The Democrats could have campaigned on the promise of reform. If they or some combination of parties in favor of reform became the majority they could have decided how to reform once in government.

Of course for all this to have happened the military would have had to make it clear that they wanted illegal protests ended and they wanted a free, internationally monitored election. I think that just a clear statement to this effect would have been enough, but in the unlikely event that the protesters refused to leave areas they illegally occupied the military could have taken the same actions they took in 2010, only this time to defend an elected government (or the caretaker government appointed by the elected government). A lot of people pretend that the only options during the protests were continued chaos or a military coup. Actually there were many other options.

So in answer to both your questions, I don't think the NRC is unnecessary, I think reform could have been handled democratically, and I think it still can."

Your reply to this was completely irrelevant, and had nothing to do with the OP, what I wrote, or anything in between. It was:

"Well, the Yingluck Administration with Ms. Yingluck doing all the 'feel good' talks and presentations wasn't into reforms. Even their belated attempt was just window dressing. As such Thai democracy couldn't handle and Thai politicians didn't want to handle 'tricky' issues.

It's interesting that the Minimum Wage was introduced by a junta and that the 'property and inheritance tax' is introduced AGAIN by a junta after an appointed government was told to drop it as it should be handled by an elected government only. It seems only juntas and their appointed governments are able to push through reforms good for the common people, but opposed by politicians.

Curious, ain't it."

I can only assume you went ridiculously off-topic because you could not longer defend your ridiculous assumption that the NRC would automatically be representative. I declined to take your off-topic bait, and wrote:

"Not the least bit curious, you ignored my post and the OP and wrote irrelevant material as a distraction. Standard procedure for you."

At this point you replied with further off-topic nonsense. I won't bother repeating it. Now you accuse me of baiting and distracting, when clearly that was the intent of your posts.

Do you want to get back to the NRC selection process? Do you want to explain what the minimum wage and inheritance tax have to do with the OP or the NRC? Can you post something remotely on-topic?

Lessons in democracy: allowing Heybruce to zigzag along, profess indignent disbelieve anyone would even contemplate to not agree with him and refusing to answers irrelevant and/or loaded questions.

Next we'll discuss the advantage of 'red-shirt schools of democracy' to properly teach adults how to think.

So your answer is "no", you're not going to post anything remotely on-topic. I'll refer this to the monitor and see if he/she has an opinion.

[heybruce]

I seem to remember that this time the army has said that there will be no referendum.

True, I also remember that.

It seems the reasoning behind that is that with the NRC consisting of mainly Thai who applied of were applied and having the NRC committees requesting all Thais to offer their valuable input, the NRC should be able to formulate reforms which should be acceptable by most Thai. Assuming this is correct, a referendum would be a waste of 3 - 4 billion Baht.

Of course if political strife results in only a limited number of Thais providing input the job is that much more difficult for the NRC, something which would show in their reporting.

Refresh my memory, who decides which of the applicants will be in the NRC? I know it involves a selection committee, but who selects the selection committee?

Please remind me, wasn't the application to the NRC committees open to all Thai?

BTW how do you think the NRC selection committee should have been put together?

I was quite surprised to see this in The Nation, and repeated in the TV News Forum.

"The minister, who is also a member of the junta, blamed conflicting parties for their failure to break the political impasse before the coup. He was not aware of the fact that his junta is implementing reconciliation process by pick?ing up only one side of opposing parties in the National Reform Council (NRC). People named in the shortlist of NRC members are the same people who protested against the previous government and actively supported the coup. None of the other opposing side was selected to the reconciliation process, so how can this government achieve reconciliation? On the contrary, what the junta has done is deepen the division in the Kingdom." http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Content-of-speech-more-significant-than-language-s-30244518.html

[tbthailand]

True, I also remember that.

It seems the reasoning behind that is that with the NRC consisting of mainly Thai who applied of were applied and having the NRC committees requesting all Thais to offer their valuable input, the NRC should be able to formulate reforms which should be acceptable by most Thai. Assuming this is correct, a referendum would be a waste of 3 - 4 billion Baht.

Of course if political strife results in only a limited number of Thais providing input the job is that much more difficult for the NRC, something which would show in their reporting.

Refresh my memory, who decides which of the applicants will be in the NRC? I know it involves a selection committee, but who selects the selection committee?

Please remind me, wasn't the application to the NRC committees open to all Thai?

BTW how do you think the NRC selection committee should have been put together?

I was quite surprised to see this in The Nation, and repeated in the TV News Forum.

"The minister, who is also a member of the junta, blamed conflicting parties for their failure to break the political impasse before the coup. He was not aware of the fact that his junta is implementing reconciliation process by pick?ing up only one side of opposing parties in the National Reform Council (NRC). People named in the shortlist of NRC members are the same people who protested against the previous government and actively supported the coup. None of the other opposing side was selected to the reconciliation process, so how can this government achieve reconciliation? On the contrary, what the junta has done is deepen the division in the Kingdom." http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Content-of-speech-more-significant-than-language-s-30244518.html

he seems to be a free-radical at the Nation from time to time. This item which he wrote just before the 2010 red shirt protests shows an style also not typical of the Nation with passages like....

As the person who oversees security matters, Suthep recommended his Cabinet members find 'safe houses' for themselves. Government intelligence anticipated some 1 million red protesters and Suthep expected even more angry demonstrators would march into the capital on March 12-14. The Cabinet approved a more than Bt200-million budget for more than 50,000 armed forces and police to handle the situation. With such preparation, it is naive to say the government will refrain from using violence against the protesters.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/03/11/politics/D-day-arrives-but-how-big-a-price-will-the-country-30124413.html

Lessons on democracy ...

[binjalin]

what a farce... go to Hong Kong and see the fight FOR democracy there or Burma

come here and see repression, censorship and jobs 'for the boys'

[AleG]

So, nine pages and, as far as I can see, noone bothered to discuss the pros and cons of the curriculum proposed or the merit of the proposal itself.

[heybruce]

So, nine pages and, as far as I can see, noone bothered to discuss the pros and cons of the curriculum proposed or the merit of the proposal itself.

It's a short article with no details of the proposed curriculum, so discussion began on the qualifications of the junta to teach democracy. It then drifted off into a discussion of the junta itself, as these topics often do.

[AleG]

So, nine pages and, as far as I can see, noone bothered to discuss the pros and cons of the curriculum proposed or the merit of the proposal itself.

It's a short article with no details of the proposed curriculum, so discussion began on the qualifications of the junta to teach democracy. It then drifted off into a discussion of the junta itself, as these topics often do.

Since it's the Election Commission that proposes the idea, what does the Junta have to do with it?

[heyexile]

So, nine pages and, as far as I can see, noone bothered to discuss the pros and cons of the curriculum proposed or the merit of the proposal itself.

It's a short article with no details of the proposed curriculum, so discussion began on the qualifications of the junta to teach democracy. It then drifted off into a discussion of the junta itself, as these topics often do.

Since it's the Election Commission that proposes the idea, what does the Junta have to do with it?

Is that the Election Commission the Junta recently sent to Scotland on an important mission?

Will these Democracy Lessons start with 5 year olds, 1st Grade, or what age?

[rubl]

So, nine pages and, as far as I can see, noone bothered to discuss the pros and cons of the curriculum proposed or the merit of the proposal itself.

It's a short article with no details of the proposed curriculum, so discussion began on the qualifications of the junta to teach democracy. It then drifted off into a discussion of the junta itself, as these topics often do.

Since it's the Election Commission that proposes the idea, what does the Junta have to do with it?

Is that the Election Commission the Junta recently sent to Scotland on an important mission?

Will these Democracy Lessons start with 5 year olds, 1st Grade, or what age?

Is that the NCPO which allowed the E.C. to watch the referendum in Scotland, you mean ?

[rubl]

Lessons in democracy: allowing Heybruce to zigzag along, profess indignent disbelieve anyone would even contemplate to not agree with him and refusing to answers irrelevant and/or loaded questions.

Next we'll discuss the advantage of 'red-shirt schools of democracy' to properly teach adults how to think.

So your answer is "no", you're not going to post anything remotely on-topic. I'll refer this to the monitor and see if he/she has an opinion.

Democracy according to HeyBruce it would seem, as taken from his posts here.

Democracy, lesson 1.

Ask distracting and loaded questions. When no answers forthcoming be surprised, hurt and accuse others of 'refusing' to answer which surely they should know to be a duty in a real democracy.

Democracy, lesson 2.

When questioned why an appointed government seems to be able to be effective, reject with simple remarks as 'off topic, can't see why it has anything to do with topic on hand', etc. Don't even try to understand why elected governments fail to pick up somethings like 'minimum wage law' or 'property and inheritance law'. Completely ignore remarks as "appointed government told to leave important issues to elected governments'. Don't wonder about how politicians see their rights and ignore their duties.

That's all for today kids. Tomorrow more,

PS. did you forget to contact the 'monitor' ?

Edited October 2, 2014 by rubl

[heybruce]

Lessons in democracy: allowing Heybruce to zigzag along, profess indignent disbelieve anyone would even contemplate to not agree with him and refusing to answers irrelevant and/or loaded questions.

Next we'll discuss the advantage of 'red-shirt schools of democracy' to properly teach adults how to think.

So your answer is "no", you're not going to post anything remotely on-topic. I'll refer this to the monitor and see if he/she has an opinion.

Democracy according to HeyBruce it would seem, as taken from his posts here.

Democracy, lesson 1.

Ask distracting and loaded questions. When no answers forthcoming be surprised, hurt and accuse others of 'refusing' to answer which surely they should know to be a duty in a real democracy.

Democracy, lesson 2.

When questioned why an appointed government seems to be able to be effective, reject with simple remarks as 'off topic, can't see why it has anything to do with topic on hand', etc. Don't even try to understand why elected governments fail to pick up somethings like 'minimum wage law' or 'property and inheritance law'. Completely ignore remarks as "appointed government told to leave important issues to elected governments'. Don't wonder about how politicians see their rights and ignore their duties.

That's all for today kids. Tomorrow more,

PS. did you forget to contact the 'monitor' ?

"Ask distracting and loaded questions. When no answers forthcoming be surprised, hurt and accuse others of 'refusing' to answer which surely they should know to be a duty in a real democracy."

That's what you do rubl, and what you did when your position on the NRC became indefensible. That's when you started extolling the virtue of a government unconstrained by any semblance of checks and balances.

"When questioned why an appointed government seems to be able to be effective, reject with simple remarks as 'off topic,"

They were off-topic. Minimum wage and inheritance tax have nothing to do with the OP or any discussion of the OP. But if you insist on an opinion, in my opinion these are contentious subjects. Some people would like to see them debated in a democratic government, others clearly prefer the expediency of rule by decree government. No need to ask which side you're on.

By the way, do you still maintain the NRC is so sublimely representative there's no need to subject it to democratic complications?

Edited October 2, 2014 by heybruce