Thread: Bangkok, Red & Yellow Shirt Rallies: Yutthasak: Police can handle rallies

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

Observing is different from actively seeking to go and be a member of the rally (crowd). If you weere caught up in a rally or walked through it then that's one thing, but, if as you claim: 1) it is part of your academic studies; 2) you have been asked to write about it, but you are not a registered journalist or some other accepted, by the police/authorities, then your presence is illegal. This is especially so at rallies such as the PAD ones at government house which have a history of violence and law breaking and have the stated intention of doing so again.

You will just have to trust me and let me worry about that angle, I am fully covered for all the observations I do. I do not take part, never have and never will. Don't worry yourself about me, but your concern is endearing.

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

Why did you bring it up then?

Because you asked...

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

From reading you posts, I don't. You don't come across as very knowledgeable at all...

Cheap.

Originally Posted by goostewart

Because you asked...

No, you brought it up in a previous post in an effort to gain credibility (though you failed) by mentioning academic studies and being asked to write/report on the subject.

I asked you to expand, but you feel unable to...

Originally Posted by goostewart

I am fully covered for all the observations I do.

How? Are you affiliated to some organization that is sanctioned to act as an 'observer'?

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

Are you affiliated to some organization that is sanctioned to act as an 'observer'?

Yes...

CIA. Navy Seals and the SAS. Really, come on, I am not going to discuss it, and I really couldn't give a toss if you believe me. You asked for an explanation as to what I was doing there today, I gave one. Now you want to turn this into something it isn't. What it most definitely isn't is me trying to establish my authority (other than over our favourite fantasist, Calgary). Really, I have no ulterior motive, I just went to take a look around and talk to some folks, I am interested in stuff like that.

Oh, and I never said that I was writing about this event - I used a conditional sentence, I write about general politics, I am not writing about the specifics of this event (or the UDD).

#114 I am actually engaged in studying the subject matter.

Engaged is a vague word choice; it could mean you are employed by somebody to do it or it could mean that you are interested in doing it.

#114 I do write about the politics of Thailand

This is another vague phrase that could be interpreted as you are employed as a skilled person of note to 'write about the politics of Thailand' or it could just mean that you are a nobody, but you have a personal diary or some kind of blog.

#114 I go to these things and talk to the folks

You have repeatedly called yourself an observer; talking to people in a political rally is very different from observing a political rally. You are inconsistent which suggests deceipt.

#114 I fail to see a problem with going and taking an interest in politics, especially if someone wants me to write about it.

Do you take an interest or are you just writing about it or both? More inconsistencies and vague word choice. Vague word choice is a tool for deception. Does somebody 'want' you to write about it, does somebody pay you to write about it or do you just have a personal diary blog and feel that you are self-important?

#118 I don't think you will find any parts of it suggesting that observing political rallies is illegal.

Do you 'observe' or do you 'talk to folks' or do you get paid to do a job? Failure to commit to a position is a sign of hedging which shows a lack of confidence in one's position or a desire to lie. Also, you haven't said that you have read the law and you know, you have not hightlighted any section of any law, instead you have attempted to use legal issues as a front to avoid asking the question; it's textually manipulative, but not convicing; it also adds to a build up of a pattern in your writing...

#118 Currently 2 editors

So, are you actually employed as a writer by these editors or are they just potentially interested? Do you 'take an interst in politics' as a laymen or do you actively and professionally write about it? You are vague and inconsistent, time after time.

#118 why I was interested and observing

You were 'interested in', not employed to or studying, just 'interested in' - please make your mind up.

#132 I just went to take a look around and talk to some folks, I am interested in stuff like that.

That's fine, very different from what you are implying above, but to be interested in politics is fine; most of us are - although we don't claim to be this and that...


#132 I never said that I was writing about this event - I used a conditional sentence, I write about general politics, I am not writing about the specifics of this event (or the UDD).

But what about your 2 editors??? I know you play semantics, but this is very easy to spot, and such semantics are used for specific reasons, in your case, I'd suggest because you're trying to come across as an authority when you are not. At the same time, you are attacking other members for, as you see it and have put it, similar behaviour. The hypocricy is outstanding.

#129 Yes...

So you are 'affiliated to some organization that is sanctioned to act as an observer', but you're not a journalist. I'm sorry, but I cannot imagine what organization that could possibly be.

What I'm trying to point out here, is that none of us are perfect, so to come across all high and mighty with your attacks on Calgary is both hypocritcal and ridiculous.

^BB, what is up with you mate?

It really isn't any of your business.

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

What I'm trying to point out here, is that none of us are perfect, so to come across all high and mighty with your attacks on Calgary is both hypicritcal and ridiculous.

The 'attack' on Calgary was in direct response to a lie that he told. That was the only reason for posting what I did. There was no other reason.

Again, I apologise for the vagueness of my replies, you just are not going to get any joy from me as I never set out to establish authority. It is as simple as that. I am sorry that you took it in the wrong way.

^ I did not take anything in any way, I simply analyzed a snippet of your writing and highlighted the hypocricy of you attacking another member - that's all.

^^ ? SD, Goostewart seems like an intelligent and capable poster, not in need of your mighty defensive skills.

On a board such as this, it is everyone's interest/business, including mine. Just as you came into a post which was between myself and Goostewart with your 'addidtion', that's your and everyone else's business/right/norm on such a web board too. Calm down and get back to your cut and pasting...

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

highlighted the hypocricy of you attacking another member

And there we have your mistake...you just got it all confused, and for that I am sorry.

^ you don't need to be sorry for my confusion. But, it is a nice writing technique, far more advanced than your previous semantics.

Originally Posted by goostewart

The 'attack' on Calgary was in direct response to a lie that he told.

This statement is too harsh. You may want to either reconsider it or prove it (something you have certainly not done...); having said that, on an internet forum it is so easy to play semantics and prove any point that it all becomes worthless; we are not world authorities in a court of law, we are simply laymen of various types expressing our viewpoints and exchanging information (or in SD's case: repeating propaganda... ).

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

This statement is too harsh.

Perhaps then you you like to explain why it was too harsh?

Originally Posted by goostewart

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

This statement is too harsh.

Perhaps then you you like to explain why it was too harsh?

I feel that to call somebody a liar, particularly on a political thread where so many polarized views are evident, is harsh and unkind; Calgary is an honest poster with honest viewpoints, sometimes he gets carried away, but we all do; that's half the point of these threads, to release personal steam so to speak.

It's perhaps nicer to add distance to such a statement via semantic choices which you are clearly well aware of and use capably; in my long post to you I did similar, but I certainly did not and would not want to directly call you a liar; I don't know you from Adam, it'd be too harsh, imo. (That's not to say that I have never done so, ask TH...)

He said something that was incorrect - intentionally. Now, I ain't no choirboy, but jesus, he spams this forum with lies, half-truths and hyperbole. I am all for political debate, but that is not what he engages in. Really, that is my problem with him, he is on the 'message' the whole time, the problem with that is he is turning off people from the message through his delivery. That is why I called him on this lie and will continue to do so when he spouts shite. I make no apology for that. Folks can get away with hyperbole, even some outright lies, but do it constantly and consistently and you are going to get called on it. It is as simple as that.

Originally Posted by goostewart

he spams this forum with lies, half-truths and hyperbole.

I don't agree. Hyperbole yes.

Now go back and read your posts, they are equally manipulative, just for a different purpose; that's hypocricy, pure and simple.

^So, goo, have you come up with some evidence for your claim that academics refer to the 2006 coup as a civil society coup? Or just another example of your tendency to make shit up to score a rhetorical point.

Not to say you lie.

Originally Posted by mao say dung

^So, goo, have you come up with some evidence for your claim that academics refer to the 2006 coup as a civil society coup? Or just another example of your tendency to make shit up to score a rhetorical point.

I even told you the journals to google...

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

^BB, what is up with you mate?

It really isn't any of your business.

it seems that BB is joining the other loons on TD who love to stalk when they don't agree with the poster

soon he will be posting like Calgary

attack on calgary happened early on this thread when he first posted the actual truth. within 10 posts he was called idiot, retard, retard multiple times by sd, ok then comes butters... euroshite happens

Originally Posted by mao say dung

^So, goo, have you come up with some evidence for your claim that academics refer to the 2006 coup as a civil society coup? Or just another example of your tendency to make shit up to score a rhetorical point.

I suspect he prefaced it with 'some'; some academics say anything... The noteable academics that write on Thai politics (often outside of Thailand due to the state of the laws here) very often call the 2005 coup a patronage network coup, or some such wording. To suggest a coup, i.e. an army invasion into the heart of politics using overwelming violent force by an armed minority for politcal purposes that are not inline with the electorate's choice, is somehow 'civil' or 'social' is just insanity. You might find some PAD activists such as Tul that called the coup a 'civil society coup', but he is in a tiny minority, part of the coup mongers machine, and hated by the vast majority of academics in and outside of Thailand who follow politics.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

^BB, what is up with you mate?

It really isn't any of your business.

it seems that BB is joining the other loons on TD who love to stalk when they don't agree with the poster

soon he will be posting like Calgary

You should be ashamed for sucking in our money you fucker! Did I just pay for your net?

fuc?ng euroshite