Unfortunately its not that easy. These protesters broke the law and should be arrested. If these types of protests are allowed to take place it undermines the rule of law. The double standards results in disrespect for the law and in future could lead to further violence. When people believe that laws are misused against them they get frustrated and turn to violence to express their emotions. If the law is however applied equally then respect for the law is the result and the rule of law becomes possible. So for the junta to allow these protests they are undermining the rule of law in the country. Without the rule of law there can be no democracy founded and the country will have no future. So my friend take the easy way out to play the color game or think a little past the your color code ray bans.

I have no colour code or side in the BS that passes for politics here.

However it is typically hypocritical of the PT supporters to feel they have the right to gather to protest in favour of yingluck but those against the puppet don't.

It typifies the way they governed and the intolerant mindset of many of those involved in the party.

I don't care if those who like her demonstrate or those against her do so, but both should be accorded the same right to protest.

From the article:

"The group (anti-YL protesters) was booed at and shouted to go away".

Is this what you mean when you say:

"However it is typically hypocritical of the PT supporters to feel they have the right to gather to protest in favour of yingluck but those against the puppet don't.

It typifies the way they governed and the intolerant mindset of many of those involved in the party."

Seriously??

"I don't care if those who like her demonstrate or those against her do so, but both should be accorded the same right to protest."

I agree wholeheartedly. Removing people's freedom of expression is one of the many bad things this junta has done.

Please show me where I defended the current restrictions on freedom of expression and the right to protest.

Please I'd love to see where I did this.

Never said you did.

Would ya?

Not many! I'd crawl five miles over broken bottles for the privilege.

So it's OK for her supporters to gather and wait to cheer her on, but not for the people who are against what she did. Can anyone see a pattern unfolding that will determine the outcome of these hearings?

NO They just showed up to soon for the party. Yes there is a pattern there but not the one that you might think.

So it's OK for her supporters to gather and wait to cheer her on, but not for the people who are against what she did. Can anyone see a pattern unfolding that will determine the outcome of these hearings?

Do you know the difference between supporters and protesters?

Is it currently illegal to have any more than 5 political protesters gathered? Answer YES.

Is it currently illegal to have any more than 5 political supporters gathered? Answer NO.

So did you have a problem with students on a train with undercover military and police trying to cause problems because they were asking for investigations into corruption?

Did you have a problem with the mad monk with his gang protesting the US embassy and they walked free?

"Can you see a pattern unfolding that will determine the outcome of these things?"

Yes I do see the pattern you are explaining. You want to make this a political argument whereas it should remain as a criminal argument. And just who is a Junta supporter?

You must have a guilt complex with your desire to support YL to make accusations like that. I don't support anybody except the current laws. I have no political views yet you throw your hatred for people who comment against your views like you actually know what you are talking about.

" I don't support anybody except the current laws. "

If you support the current laws (implemented by a military government that overthrew an elected one and tore up the constitution as well as giving themselves the mother of all amnesties) then you support the junta - plain and simple.

Why? Because I am not Thai and wish to remain in Thailand with my wife and family? That's what makes me a Junta supporter? Or perhaps! I think it's not my place to support either. And to follow the laws no matter what that entails until such time as they change.

Let's not forget that your pretty YL had no concern for the laws. What was good for the people to follow didn't apply to her and her family and cohorts.

Yes, that was a very neutral outburst. You're about as neutral as Khun Suthep. The fact that you are a junta fanboy is plainly obvious, so why not have the guts to admit it?

From the article:

"The group (anti-YL protesters) was booed at and shouted to go away".

Is this what you mean when you say:

"However it is typically hypocritical of the PT supporters to feel they have the right to gather to protest in favour of yingluck but those against the puppet don't.

It typifies the way they governed and the intolerant mindset of many of those involved in the party."

Seriously??

"I don't care if those who like her demonstrate or those against her do so, but both should be accorded the same right to protest."

I agree wholeheartedly. Removing people's freedom of expression is one of the many bad things this junta has done.

Please show me where I defended the current restrictions on freedom of expression and the right to protest.

Please I'd love to see where I did this.

Never said you did.

My mistake. There definitely seemed to be an implication that my contempt for PT was an indication of support for those against them, but if you say not I'll take that as the truth.

For I was absolutely serious when I stated that intolerance is at the core of PT.

Along with violence, corruption, incompetence and a tendency to betray those they claim to represent.

So it's OK for her supporters to gather and wait to cheer her on, but not for the people who are against what she did. Can anyone see a pattern unfolding that will determine the outcome of these hearings?

Do you know the difference between supporters and protesters?

Is it currently illegal to have any more than 5 political protesters gathered? Answer YES.

Is it currently illegal to have any more than 5 political supporters gathered? Answer NO.

So did you have a problem with students on a train with undercover military and police trying to cause problems because they were asking for investigations into corruption?

Did you have a problem with the mad monk with his gang protesting the US embassy and they walked free?

"Can you see a pattern unfolding that will determine the outcome of these things?"

Those protesters just supported the court (prosecution).. so is allowed.. and YL her supporters are against the court case.. should they now be arrested.

Fact is as usual the reds have double standards.

Mad monk walks free.. and YL her supporters walk free.. see the similarities. Now next time don't be so bias.

I suppose, because English isn't your first language, that we'll have to excuse your confusion over supporters and protesters.

So it's OK for her supporters to gather and wait to cheer her on, but not for the people who are against what she did. Can anyone see a pattern unfolding that will determine the outcome of these hearings?

Do you know the difference between supporters and protesters?

Is it currently illegal to have any more than 5 political protesters gathered? Answer YES.

Is it currently illegal to have any more than 5 political supporters gathered? Answer NO.

So did you have a problem with students on a train with undercover military and police trying to cause problems because they were asking for investigations into corruption?

Did you have a problem with the mad monk with his gang protesting the US embassy and they walked free?

"Can you see a pattern unfolding that will determine the outcome of these things?"

Those protesters just supported the court (prosecution).. so is allowed.. and YL her supporters are against the court case.. should they now be arrested.

Fact is as usual the reds have double standards.

Mad monk walks free.. and YL her supporters walk free.. see the similarities. Now next time don't be so bias.

I suppose, because English isn't your first language, that we'll have to excuse your confusion over supporters and protesters.

In this context there is absolutely no difference. Just calling someone a supporter or protesters does not change a thing.

YL her supporters support her in her trail against the government. You could say then that they are protesting against the government by supporting her. Now the protesters are just supporting the government protesting against YL.

Confused yet ?.. the label does not matter both are political gatherings. Both should be treated the same.

If I label a Kiwi as an orange that does not change what it is.

From the article:

"The group (anti-YL protesters) was booed at and shouted to go away".

Is this what you mean when you say:

"However it is typically hypocritical of the PT supporters to feel they have the right to gather to protest in favour of yingluck but those against the puppet don't.

It typifies the way they governed and the intolerant mindset of many of those involved in the party."

Seriously??

"I don't care if those who like her demonstrate or those against her do so, but both should be accorded the same right to protest."

I agree wholeheartedly. Removing people's freedom of expression is one of the many bad things this junta has done.

Please show me where I defended the current restrictions on freedom of expression and the right to protest.

Please I'd love to see where I did this.

Never said you did.

My mistake. There definitely seemed to be an implication that my contempt for PT was an indication of support for those against them, but if you say not I'll take that as the truth.

For I was absolutely serious when I stated that intolerance is at the core of PT.

Along with violence, corruption, incompetence and a tendency to betray those they claim to represent.

"For I was absolutely serious when I stated that intolerance is at the core of PT."

What is more intolerant than overthrowing an elected government to serve the interests of a small group of people?

The PT were an incompetent bunch of <deleted> but compared to the present bunch they are amateurs.

Please show me where I defended the current restrictions on freedom of expression and the right to protest.

Please I'd love to see where I did this.

Never said you did.

My mistake. There definitely seemed to be an implication that my contempt for PT was an indication of support for those against them, but if you say not I'll take that as the truth.

For I was absolutely serious when I stated that intolerance is at the core of PT.

Along with violence, corruption, incompetence and a tendency to betray those they claim to represent.

"For I was absolutely serious when I stated that intolerance is at the core of PT."

What is more intolerant than overthrowing an elected government to serve the interests of a small group of people?

The PT were an incompetent bunch of <deleted> but compared to the present bunch they are amateurs.

Intolerance is evident across the political spectrum in Thailand and that's why I avoid taking sides.

The parties are just the same side of the same coin fighting for their place at the trough.

Never said you did.

My mistake. There definitely seemed to be an implication that my contempt for PT was an indication of support for those against them, but if you say not I'll take that as the truth.

For I was absolutely serious when I stated that intolerance is at the core of PT.

Along with violence, corruption, incompetence and a tendency to betray those they claim to represent.

"For I was absolutely serious when I stated that intolerance is at the core of PT."

What is more intolerant than overthrowing an elected government to serve the interests of a small group of people?

The PT were an incompetent bunch of <deleted> but compared to the present bunch they are amateurs.

Intolerance is evident across the political spectrum in Thailand and that's why I avoid taking sides.

The parties are just the same side of the same coin fighting for their place at the trough.

"The parties are just the same side of the same coin fighting for their place at the trough."

Agreed.

"Intolerance is evident across the political spectrum in Thailand and that's why I avoid taking sides."

It's incomprehensible to me that anyone raised in a functioning democracy can avoid taking sides. I'll take a seriously flawed democracy over a d junta any day of the week.

Intolerance is evident across the political spectrum in Thailand and that's why I avoid taking sides.

The parties are just the same side of the same coin fighting for their place at the trough.

"The parties are just the same side of the same coin fighting for their place at the trough."

Agreed.

"Intolerance is evident across the political spectrum in Thailand and that's why I avoid taking sides."

It's incomprehensible to me that anyone raised in a functioning democracy can avoid taking sides. I'll take a seriously flawed democracy over a d junta any day of the week.

Can't believe I'm having to explain this, however...

I avoid taking sides as in red/yellow.

I stick to commenting on what is right or wrong, regardless of who is right or wrong.

Intolerance is evident across the political spectrum in Thailand and that's why I avoid taking sides.

The parties are just the same side of the same coin fighting for their place at the trough.

"The parties are just the same side of the same coin fighting for their place at the trough."

Agreed.

"Intolerance is evident across the political spectrum in Thailand and that's why I avoid taking sides."

It's incomprehensible to me that anyone raised in a functioning democracy can avoid taking sides. I'll take a seriously flawed democracy over a d junta any day of the week.

Can't believe I'm having to explain this, however...

I avoid taking sides as in red/yellow.

I stick to commenting on what is right or wrong, regardless of who is right or wrong.

fair enough but then why highlight PT? Yingluck is going to court and there are supporters wishing her well with flowers . Would it be ok for PT to turn up outside the court appearances of the students arrested? they would be chucked into the back of a van and driven away to one of the 'attitude' camps and so flawed democracy over unelected Junta anyday

Why pick on PT in this case? Because it was PT supporters gathered to support yingluck who refused to accept the anti yingluck group had the right to protest against her.

As I said, typical PT. We can gather, you can't.

Nothing I have posted has said PT cannot protest. As far as I'm concerned they can.

I think the electorate and public would have to be idiots to believe anything they say or do, but that's their choice.

Edited March 24, 201610 yr by Bluespunk

Do you know the difference between supporters and protesters?

Is it currently illegal to have any more than 5 political protesters gathered? Answer YES.

Is it currently illegal to have any more than 5 political supporters gathered? Answer NO.

So did you have a problem with students on a train with undercover military and police trying to cause problems because they were asking for investigations into corruption?

Did you have a problem with the mad monk with his gang protesting the US embassy and they walked free?

"Can you see a pattern unfolding that will determine the outcome of these things?"

Please don't confuse the junta supporters with facts!

You're so funny! As if a Shin fan would even recognize a fact!

Please supply just one quote where I say anything positive about the Shins.

Not you - him.

The parties are just the same side of the same coin fighting for their place at the trough."

Agreed.

"Intolerance is evident across the political spectrum in Thailand and that's why I avoid taking sides."

It's incomprehensible to me that anyone raised in a functioning democracy can avoid taking sides. I'll take a seriously flawed democracy over a d junta any day of the week.

The problem with that is that in a seriously flawed democracy you need a sound justice system - judicial, prosecution service, investigative and enforcement; along with procedures and strong clear laws, to ensure those who are flawed are appropriately dealt with.

If you don't you end up with the effective one very corrupt party rule for many many years, a la Zimbabwe, and other sub-Saharan African or Asian "democracies". Usually these "democratic" governments all claim to be socialists of some sort, all try to dismantle the opposition, checks & balances and find ways to intimidate any who dare speak against them.

The absence of such a robust independent, impartial justice system, check and balances is the difference between a functioning and non functioning democracy.

Typical PT.

We can do this, you can't.

Unfortunately its not that easy. These protesters broke the law and should be arrested. If these types of protests are allowed to take place it undermines the rule of law. The double standards results in disrespect for the law and in future could lead to further violence. When people believe that laws are misused against them they get frustrated and turn to violence to express their emotions. If the law is however applied equally then respect for the law is the result and the rule of law becomes possible. So for the junta to allow these protests they are undermining the rule of law in the country. Without the rule of law there can be no democracy founded and the country will have no future. So my friend take the easy way out to play the color game or think a little past the your color code ray bans.

I have no colour code or side in the BS that passes for politics here.

However it is typically hypocritical of the PT supporters to feel they have the right to gather to protest in favour of yingluck but those against the puppet don't.

It typifies the way they governed and the intolerant mindset of many of those involved in the party.

I don't care if those who like her demonstrate or those against her do so, but both should be accorded the same right to protest.

From the article:

"The group (anti-YL protesters) was booed at and shouted to go away".

Is this what you mean when you say:

"However it is typically hypocritical of the PT supporters to feel they have the right to gather to protest in favour of yingluck but those against the puppet don't.

It typifies the way they governed and the intolerant mindset of many of those involved in the party."

Seriously??

"I don't care if those who like her demonstrate or those against her do so, but both should be accorded the same right to protest."

I agree wholeheartedly. Removing people's freedom of expression is one of the many bad things this junta has done.

Removing freedom of expression, the right to peaceful protest, the right of the media to report reality and investigate and report are all things those from real democracies take for granted and often forget their importance to a functioning democracy.

But you are naive if you think the Thai people have ever enjoyed such fundamental rights. Do you really think the previous government promoted free speech, debate and accepted criticism? Do some research and you'll see.

All take advantage of the feudal patronage, clan like loyalties, web of laws designed to strangle such freedoms - and they won't change them because they benefit from them too much.

Please supply just one quote where I say anything positive about the Shins.

You seem quite willing to excuse criminal behaviour as incompetence, in the same thread. And before you attempt to deny criminality, ask yourself why they needed an amnesty, a corrupt act in itself?

Please supply just one quote where I say anything positive about the Shins.

You seem quite willing to excuse criminal behaviour as incompetence, in the same thread. And before you attempt to deny criminality, ask yourself why they needed an amnesty, a corrupt act in itself?

"Ask yourself why they need amnesty, a corrupt act in itself?" Your words mate, Now the current gov has blessed them selves with an amnesty that forgives past present and future crimes, so by most peoples reckoning they would be three times if not more corrupt than ANY past government,,, So consistency, non bias balance and fair play would dictate that you to condemn the junta with FAR GREATER VIGOR AND INTENT, but that is just not the case now is it,,, you condemn the PTP for their amnesty attempt but lord the junta regardless off their massive and far reaching amnesty, love ya work mate.

Why pick on PT in this case? Because it was PT supporters gathered to support yingluck who refused to accept the anti yingluck group had the right to protest against her.

As I said, typical PT. We can gather, you can't.

Nothing I have posted has said PT cannot protest. As far as I'm concerned they can.

I think the electorate and public would have to be idiots to believe anything they say or do, but that's their choice.

Normally I am 99% with you but not on this one... and here's why... the people who turned up at the court were NOT protesting anything, there were no 'down with Junta signs' they were handing flowers to a colleague and friend. If they HAD been holding signs, as millions would like to, they would be in serious trouble yet the yellow's can demonstrate and protest at will (i.e. the mob outside the Embassy) and here at the courthouse. There is NO consistency at all - one side have complete freedom and the other, you call them PT, have NONE. Freedom to demonstrate and protest for ALL? yes I agree with that

Please supply just one quote where I say anything positive about the Shins.

You seem quite willing to excuse criminal behaviour as incompetence, in the same thread. And before you attempt to deny criminality, ask yourself why they needed an amnesty, a corrupt act in itself?

why does the junta need an amnesty then?

Unfortunately its not that easy. These protesters broke the law and should be arrested. If these types of protests are allowed to take place it undermines the rule of law. The double standards results in disrespect for the law and in future could lead to further violence. When people believe that laws are misused against them they get frustrated and turn to violence to express their emotions. If the law is however applied equally then respect for the law is the result and the rule of law becomes possible. So for the junta to allow these protests they are undermining the rule of law in the country. Without the rule of law there can be no democracy founded and the country will have no future. So my friend take the easy way out to play the color game or think a little past the your color code ray bans.

I have no colour code or side in the BS that passes for politics here.

However it is typically hypocritical of the PT supporters to feel they have the right to gather to protest in favour of yingluck but those against the puppet don't.

It typifies the way they governed and the intolerant mindset of many of those involved in the party.

I don't care if those who like her demonstrate or those against her do so, but both should be accorded the same right to protest.

From the article:

"The group (anti-YL protesters) was booed at and shouted to go away".

Is this what you mean when you say:

"However it is typically hypocritical of the PT supporters to feel they have the right to gather to protest in favour of yingluck but those against the puppet don't.

It typifies the way they governed and the intolerant mindset of many of those involved in the party."

Seriously??

"I don't care if those who like her demonstrate or those against her do so, but both should be accorded the same right to protest."

I agree wholeheartedly. Removing people's freedom of expression is one of the many bad things this junta has done.

Removing freedom of expression, the right to peaceful protest, the right of the media to report reality and investigate and report are all things those from real democracies take for granted and often forget their importance to a functioning democracy.

But you are naive if you think the Thai people have ever enjoyed such fundamental rights. Do you really think the previous government promoted free speech, debate and accepted criticism? Do some research and you'll see.

All take advantage of the feudal patronage, clan like loyalties, web of laws designed to strangle such freedoms - and they won't change them because they benefit from them too much.

"But you are naive if you think the Thai people have ever enjoyed such fundamental rights."

I don't consider myself naive, quite the contrary. In fact, I consider those who still believe anything fundamental will change under this junta (# 19) to be naive (to put it mildly).

"Do you really think the previous government promoted free speech, debate and accepted criticism?"

Of course not, TIT after all. Thai people have never enjoyed fully the freedoms we from the west take for granted, but it's also obvious that they enjoy far less freedom today than under any of the elected administrations.

Please supply just one quote where I say anything positive about the Shins.

You seem quite willing to excuse criminal behaviour as incompetence, in the same thread. And before you attempt to deny criminality, ask yourself why they needed an amnesty, a corrupt act in itself?

why does the junta need an amnesty then?

I have asked the junta supporters the same question countless times but all I get (and all you'll get) is a big fat nothing.

Typical PT.

We can do this, you can't.

Unfortunately its not that easy. These protesters broke the law and should be arrested. If these types of protests are allowed to take place it undermines the rule of law. The double standards results in disrespect for the law and in future could lead to further violence. When people believe that laws are misused against them they get frustrated and turn to violence to express their emotions. If the law is however applied equally then respect for the law is the result and the rule of law becomes possible. So for the junta to allow these protests they are undermining the rule of law in the country. Without the rule of law there can be no democracy founded and the country will have no future. So my friend take the easy way out to play the color game or think a little past the your color code ray bans.

You talk absurdly of double standards and the rule of law, yet appear completely oblivious to the irony involved given the illegal origins of the Junta.

Please supply just one quote where I say anything positive about the Shins.

You seem quite willing to excuse criminal behaviour as incompetence, in the same thread. And before you attempt to deny criminality, ask yourself why they needed an amnesty, a corrupt act in itself?

"You seem quite willing to excuse criminal behaviour as incompetence...."

Oh, my apologies. I didn't know YL had been convicted yet. But I guess you know what the verdict will be anyway as the courts are not exactly impartial, are they?

"And before you attempt to deny criminality, ask yourself why they needed an amnesty, a corrupt act in itself?"

I don't need to ask myself that. It's very obvious that they attempted to get Thaksin back. But they failed in their amnesty attempt, much unlike the junta who succeeded spectacularly.

Now, ask yourself why they needed an amnesty, a corrupt act in itself?

The parties are just the same side of the same coin fighting for their place at the trough."

Agreed.

"Intolerance is evident across the political spectrum in Thailand and that's why I avoid taking sides."

It's incomprehensible to me that anyone raised in a functioning democracy can avoid taking sides. I'll take a seriously flawed democracy over a d junta any day of the week.

The problem with that is that in a seriously flawed democracy you need a sound justice system - judicial, prosecution service, investigative and enforcement; along with procedures and strong clear laws, to ensure those who are flawed are appropriately dealt with.

If you don't you end up with the effective one very corrupt party rule for many many years, a la Zimbabwe, and other sub-Saharan African or Asian "democracies". Usually these "democratic" governments all claim to be socialists of some sort, all try to dismantle the opposition, checks & balances and find ways to intimidate any who dare speak against them.

The absence of such a robust independent, impartial justice system, check and balances is the difference between a functioning and non functioning democracy.

True, an independent judiciary is one of the prerequisites of a functioning democracy, but there is also a need for a functioning (meaning altruistic, not preoccupied with narrow self interest) legislature and executive branch.

None of which has ever been present in Thailand - least of all now. My point has always been that keeping a society in stasis under a junta removes any hope that Thailand can evolve into something (I would consider) better.

Edited March 25, 201610 yr by MZurf

Why pick on PT in this case? Because it was PT supporters gathered to support yingluck who refused to accept the anti yingluck group had the right to protest against her.

As I said, typical PT. We can gather, you can't.

Nothing I have posted has said PT cannot protest. As far as I'm concerned they can.

I think the electorate and public would have to be idiots to believe anything they say or do, but that's their choice.

Normally I am 99% with you but not on this one... and here's why... the people who turned up at the court were NOT protesting anything, there were no 'down with Junta signs' they were handing flowers to a colleague and friend. If they HAD been holding signs, as millions would like to, they would be in serious trouble yet the yellow's can demonstrate and protest at will (i.e. the mob outside the Embassy) and here at the courthouse. There is NO consistency at all - one side have complete freedom and the other, you call them PT, have NONE. Freedom to demonstrate and protest for ALL? yes I agree with that

They were there to show support. Fair enough.

Those there to show contempt should have had the same right to protest.

Please supply just one quote where I say anything positive about the Shins.

You seem quite willing to excuse criminal behaviour as incompetence, in the same thread. And before you attempt to deny criminality, ask yourself why they needed an amnesty, a corrupt act in itself?

why does the junta need an amnesty then?

They're going to need more than 1.

Typical PT.

We can do this, you can't.

Unfortunately its not that easy. These protesters broke the law and should be arrested. If these types of protests are allowed to take place it undermines the rule of law. The double standards results in disrespect for the law and in future could lead to further violence. When people believe that laws are misused against them they get frustrated and turn to violence to express their emotions. If the law is however applied equally then respect for the law is the result and the rule of law becomes possible. So for the junta to allow these protests they are undermining the rule of law in the country. Without the rule of law there can be no democracy founded and the country will have no future. So my friend take the easy way out to play the color game or think a little past the your color code ray bans.

You talk absurdly of double standards and the rule of law, yet appear completely oblivious to the irony involved given the illegal origins of the Junta.

You could also interpret southerstars post as meaning:

- People respect the concept of law and the outcomes of the judicial process to the point where protests are not needed.

So it's OK for her supporters to gather and wait to cheer her on, but not for the people who are against what she did. Can anyone see a pattern unfolding that will determine the outcome of these hearings?

At least the supporters of the Shinawatra's did not have resort to hand grenades to disperse those who do no agree with them this time.

Edited March 25, 201610 yr by Basil B

Typical PT.

We can do this, you can't.

Unfortunately its not that easy. These protesters broke the law and should be arrested. If these types of protests are allowed to take place it undermines the rule of law. The double standards results in disrespect for the law and in future could lead to further violence. When people believe that laws are misused against them they get frustrated and turn to violence to express their emotions. If the law is however applied equally then respect for the law is the result and the rule of law becomes possible. So for the junta to allow these protests they are undermining the rule of law in the country. Without the rule of law there can be no democracy founded and the country will have no future. So my friend take the easy way out to play the color game or think a little past the your color code ray bans.

You talk absurdly of double standards and the rule of law, yet appear completely oblivious to the irony involved given the illegal origins of the Junta.

You could also interpret southerstars post as meaning:

- People respect the concept of law and the outcomes of the judicial process to the point where protests are not needed.

Well that's the objective with which I would certainly agree.Whether that's what the poster meant or indeed believes I would rather doubt.