I see you are both thick and silly. The lese majeste exists in Thailand. The monarchy exists. Prem exists. These are facts of life. If one cannot reduce or eliminate them and their power, one can at least try and do something to prevent that power from expanding. That in no way means one supports them. (Whereas using rachasap in writing, if not tongue in cheek, is supportive.)
So I in no way confirmed your point # 4, and Thongchai is not at all what you say he is. He is faulty in one aspect: by following your past history on this website, he should have recognized you as simply a producer of flames, just to stir up shit. We should ignore those who flame us.
So, no points to you, no points to me, none to Thongchai and only a quarter point to the turgid historicuss. The one who gets the points is Prem because he has the broader pro-democracy movement fighting itself.
“but try telling that to the many financial counsellors trying to help debt ridden consumers.” >> A functionally differentiated economy with a consumerist approach (and, regarding Thailand, a strong emphasis on social status as expressed in consumer goods)–often supported by the state, called “internal demand”, in order to add GDP to export-generated income–has its risks, no doubt about this. In Germany, about 10 percent of the population have more debts than they can repay. Many years ago, when I was still a social worker, I almost ended up as a financial counsellor for the German armed forces.
Republican says: I don’t see what this has to do with Trotsky. This is NOT a question of doctrinal rigour but of logical argumentation.
My response was to the silly comment you made by keeping score and the label “Thongchai-Royalists”. As I sais it reminds me of Trostskyists fighting each other, even when they all fir in a telephone booth. I think you are fighting the wrong fight on this one.
If he doesn’t read blogs why does anyone think this pompous and conservative interviewee would read these comments. I’m not even sure why he would deign to give an interview to NM if he doesn’t read these websites. Perhaps he was flattered by the request or perhaps he secretly reads these responses. I find his comments on critical reviews of his work and politics to be revealing of a remarkably inflated ego.
Bob, of course I am going to say “I’m not not being compassionate”.
I do not think bleeding away with Human Rights Watch is any sort of virtuous occupation; more it is endemic of the gross laziness that besets believers in overarching solutions through the application of exceptionalised and particular rights. How can people be compassionate in situations where they are not directly involved? By condemning actions and inactions in far off lands I can still sleep in a comfortable bed at night. HRW epitomizes those people who can call the kettle black yet still find that they are able to ‘fight the good fight’. I have as much compassion for those people who found themselves in situations that have resulted in them contracting AIDS as I do with the people whose blood has been spilled for my car trips to university. Is that then no compassion because of my own inaction? Thanks HRW writers for detailing our ending.
If you have AIDS Bob, then I cannot express anything beyond this honesty that could be found sincere enough to be peaceful with.
If this went to trial, this might be some of the testimony:
“No, they misunderstood what I said to them” the defendant will testify. “I did not say the Viagra was for their support in the upcoming ELECTION . . .”
Of course, this assumes that the communication occurred in English, which was probably not the case…
Another question is whether the Viagra doses bought the vote of the spouse as part of the package?
“Are they seen primarily as a business tool, or as a modern toy?” >> Or as a modern means of communication? SMS decisively helps me keeping up my relationship with a person close to my heart. Is this a valid reason, or does it mean that I use the mobile as a “modern toy”? Should the state determine who has the right to buy a mobile phone, based on a law that stipulates valid reasons for having one? If the “necessity” criterion would be employed, the entire mobile phone market would collapse in a few days–the standard usage being something like “Khun Mae, I am at BTS Mor Chit already. Will be home in twenty minutes.” Same goes for computers and the Internet, including blogs (excluding New Mandala, of course). Since we are at it, there is also no necessity for the great number of nonsensical glossy journals, senseless Japanese cartoon books, and neither for 90 percent of the TV program.
nganadeeleg: I sympathize with your “pay only” situation.
But Teth those farmers do know their place in Thai democracy and last I heard the cellphones were very useful to these very farmers to get over their ignorance on what democracy . . . err a vote this year, should be worth at. I have a feeling that at the North . . . where the price of a vote had jumped to Baht 2,000 (versus Baht 400 last yar) must have been helped by rapid information dissemination . . . via the cellphone.
Cellphones with games, internet plus camera to boot must be very useful to raise a small Thai farmer’s productivity. Because the farmer had to borrow to buy the latest cellphone gadgetry . . . those productivity increases . . . via gameplaying or picture taking . . . become more urgent. What do you think Teth those Thai farmers would be using cellphone internet features for?
Srithanonchai: Who is discussing whether mobile phones are permitted to be used only by certain groups in society?
Some critics of Thaksin’s policies have suggested that expending village funds on consumer goods such as mobile phones is wasteful (by either the then government, or by the recipient of the funds).
Andrew, a fan of Thaksin, has countered by by suggesting expenditure on mobiles phones makes good sense.
As usual, I’m in the middle, by pointing out that how the phones are used would determine whether the expenditure is wasteful or not.
You might think it patronizing and futile, but try telling that to the many financial counsellors trying to help debt ridden consumers.
After the present King, there will be a 30-40 decline in the significance of the monarchy, perhaps somewhat lessened by a post-Bhumipol cult. So, be happy, or be sad, depending on your inclination.
It is rather bizarre to discuss whether mobile phones should be permitted to be used only by certain groups in society. This is very patronizing. It is also futile, because in an open economy socio-economic decisions are decentralized to the individuals–as long as they possess the means of exchange, that is.
“The idea that mobile phones bring economic benefits is now widely accepted”
I accept that mobiles phones are often more cost effective than land lines, and it’s obvious that they can bring economic benefits, especially to those who sell them (Thaksin is a perfect example), but for many users, mobile phone have a negative impact on their economic wealth.
Personally, I don’t have a mobile phone, but unfortunately I have to pay the bills of my family members who do have them.
Andrew, I would be interested to hear of any research information you have as to how the mobile phones have been utilized by Thai villagers.
(Are they seen primarily as a business tool, or as a modern toy ?)
But any new-fangled technology is only as good or as useful depending on how the user employs it. A cellphone should be very helpful to the farmer to get his daily market information … and negotiate all the “deals” he needs to get his farm competitive. But does the Thai farmer realize that?
Once again, the one who demeans the Thai farmer.
As Mr Viroj said, even as a communication device, it is extremely more beneficial and cost-effective than land lines.
Surely you must know that Thai people can communicate, even those rural, ignorant farmers who don’t know their place in Thailand’s “democracy.”
Even when one does not consider those “economic benefits” and focus only on access to telephone as a communication device which–at times–can be vital for everybody, and want to find the most cost-effective to provide it; one would find that, in rural (especially remote) areas, mobile phone would be the most efficient solution, much more than having the long telephone lines going to over the vast and low population density areas.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The King Never Smiles?
Republican,
I see you are both thick and silly. The lese majeste exists in Thailand. The monarchy exists. Prem exists. These are facts of life. If one cannot reduce or eliminate them and their power, one can at least try and do something to prevent that power from expanding. That in no way means one supports them. (Whereas using rachasap in writing, if not tongue in cheek, is supportive.)
So I in no way confirmed your point # 4, and Thongchai is not at all what you say he is. He is faulty in one aspect: by following your past history on this website, he should have recognized you as simply a producer of flames, just to stir up shit. We should ignore those who flame us.
So, no points to you, no points to me, none to Thongchai and only a quarter point to the turgid historicuss. The one who gets the points is Prem because he has the broader pro-democracy movement fighting itself.
One-2-grow
Or are you simply that unimaginative and dull?
The King Never Smiles?
Can anybody tell me a non-offensive Thai expression for “royalists”, i.e. not something like “fai niyom jao”?
One-2-grow
“but try telling that to the many financial counsellors trying to help debt ridden consumers.” >> A functionally differentiated economy with a consumerist approach (and, regarding Thailand, a strong emphasis on social status as expressed in consumer goods)–often supported by the state, called “internal demand”, in order to add GDP to export-generated income–has its risks, no doubt about this. In Germany, about 10 percent of the population have more debts than they can repay. Many years ago, when I was still a social worker, I almost ended up as a financial counsellor for the German armed forces.
One-2-grow
“What do you think Teth those Thai farmers would be using cellphone internet features for?”
For the same thing you do.
Or are they too stupid and dirt poor?
The King Never Smiles?
Republican says: I don’t see what this has to do with Trotsky. This is NOT a question of doctrinal rigour but of logical argumentation.
My response was to the silly comment you made by keeping score and the label “Thongchai-Royalists”. As I sais it reminds me of Trostskyists fighting each other, even when they all fir in a telephone booth. I think you are fighting the wrong fight on this one.
Interview with Professor Michael Aung-Thwin
If he doesn’t read blogs why does anyone think this pompous and conservative interviewee would read these comments. I’m not even sure why he would deign to give an interview to NM if he doesn’t read these websites. Perhaps he was flattered by the request or perhaps he secretly reads these responses. I find his comments on critical reviews of his work and politics to be revealing of a remarkably inflated ego.
Thailand’s “deadly denial”
Bob, of course I am going to say “I’m not not being compassionate”.
I do not think bleeding away with Human Rights Watch is any sort of virtuous occupation; more it is endemic of the gross laziness that besets believers in overarching solutions through the application of exceptionalised and particular rights. How can people be compassionate in situations where they are not directly involved? By condemning actions and inactions in far off lands I can still sleep in a comfortable bed at night. HRW epitomizes those people who can call the kettle black yet still find that they are able to ‘fight the good fight’. I have as much compassion for those people who found themselves in situations that have resulted in them contracting AIDS as I do with the people whose blood has been spilled for my car trips to university. Is that then no compassion because of my own inaction? Thanks HRW writers for detailing our ending.
If you have AIDS Bob, then I cannot express anything beyond this honesty that could be found sincere enough to be peaceful with.
Uncle, is that a gun in your pocket or did you just sell your vote?
If this went to trial, this might be some of the testimony:
“No, they misunderstood what I said to them” the defendant will testify. “I did not say the Viagra was for their support in the upcoming ELECTION . . .”
Of course, this assumes that the communication occurred in English, which was probably not the case…
Another question is whether the Viagra doses bought the vote of the spouse as part of the package?
One-2-grow
“Are they seen primarily as a business tool, or as a modern toy?” >> Or as a modern means of communication? SMS decisively helps me keeping up my relationship with a person close to my heart. Is this a valid reason, or does it mean that I use the mobile as a “modern toy”? Should the state determine who has the right to buy a mobile phone, based on a law that stipulates valid reasons for having one? If the “necessity” criterion would be employed, the entire mobile phone market would collapse in a few days–the standard usage being something like “Khun Mae, I am at BTS Mor Chit already. Will be home in twenty minutes.” Same goes for computers and the Internet, including blogs (excluding New Mandala, of course). Since we are at it, there is also no necessity for the great number of nonsensical glossy journals, senseless Japanese cartoon books, and neither for 90 percent of the TV program.
nganadeeleg: I sympathize with your “pay only” situation.
One-2-grow
But Teth those farmers do know their place in Thai democracy and last I heard the cellphones were very useful to these very farmers to get over their ignorance on what democracy . . . err a vote this year, should be worth at. I have a feeling that at the North . . . where the price of a vote had jumped to Baht 2,000 (versus Baht 400 last yar) must have been helped by rapid information dissemination . . . via the cellphone.
Cellphones with games, internet plus camera to boot must be very useful to raise a small Thai farmer’s productivity. Because the farmer had to borrow to buy the latest cellphone gadgetry . . . those productivity increases . . . via gameplaying or picture taking . . . become more urgent. What do you think Teth those Thai farmers would be using cellphone internet features for?
One-2-grow
Srithanonchai: Who is discussing whether mobile phones are permitted to be used only by certain groups in society?
Some critics of Thaksin’s policies have suggested that expending village funds on consumer goods such as mobile phones is wasteful (by either the then government, or by the recipient of the funds).
Andrew, a fan of Thaksin, has countered by by suggesting expenditure on mobiles phones makes good sense.
As usual, I’m in the middle, by pointing out that how the phones are used would determine whether the expenditure is wasteful or not.
You might think it patronizing and futile, but try telling that to the many financial counsellors trying to help debt ridden consumers.
Uncle, is that a gun in your pocket or did you just sell your vote?
“…sexual dysfunction at social functions…”
Oh, my Buddha!!! A.W., what kind of country is this?
The King Never Smiles?
“a 30-40 year decline”, of course, sorry.
The King Never Smiles?
After the present King, there will be a 30-40 decline in the significance of the monarchy, perhaps somewhat lessened by a post-Bhumipol cult. So, be happy, or be sad, depending on your inclination.
One-2-grow
It is rather bizarre to discuss whether mobile phones should be permitted to be used only by certain groups in society. This is very patronizing. It is also futile, because in an open economy socio-economic decisions are decentralized to the individuals–as long as they possess the means of exchange, that is.
One-2-grow
“The idea that mobile phones bring economic benefits is now widely accepted”
I accept that mobiles phones are often more cost effective than land lines, and it’s obvious that they can bring economic benefits, especially to those who sell them (Thaksin is a perfect example), but for many users, mobile phone have a negative impact on their economic wealth.
Personally, I don’t have a mobile phone, but unfortunately I have to pay the bills of my family members who do have them.
Andrew, I would be interested to hear of any research information you have as to how the mobile phones have been utilized by Thai villagers.
(Are they seen primarily as a business tool, or as a modern toy ?)
Thailand’s “deadly denial”
Nice touch of compassion Grasshopper.
Today is World AIDS day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_AIDS_Day
One-2-grow
But any new-fangled technology is only as good or as useful depending on how the user employs it. A cellphone should be very helpful to the farmer to get his daily market information … and negotiate all the “deals” he needs to get his farm competitive. But does the Thai farmer realize that?
Once again, the one who demeans the Thai farmer.
As Mr Viroj said, even as a communication device, it is extremely more beneficial and cost-effective than land lines.
Surely you must know that Thai people can communicate, even those rural, ignorant farmers who don’t know their place in Thailand’s “democracy.”
One-2-grow
Even when one does not consider those “economic benefits” and focus only on access to telephone as a communication device which–at times–can be vital for everybody, and want to find the most cost-effective to provide it; one would find that, in rural (especially remote) areas, mobile phone would be the most efficient solution, much more than having the long telephone lines going to over the vast and low population density areas.