chuckwoww Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 "As to a thread being hijacked or side tacked, well, it is not a too uncommon event in regards to forums, and that's a part of everyday life. It can be somewhat disappointing if you have a keen interest in the subject matter." This thread started out about Harry. Easy solution. If someone thinks Harry is irrelevant start another thread. Surely there are lots of people just itching to discuss lese majeste laws ad infinitum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bust Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 Maybe Harry Nicolaides is the smart one... What's that saying...any publicity is good publicity. KS are you on leave? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gadfly Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 This thread started out about Harry. Easy solution. If someone thinks Harry is irrelevant start another thread. Surely there are lots of people just itching to discuss lese majeste laws ad infinitum. The two obviosuly go together. And its equally obvious that you want to discuss all these subjects, but don't want dissent to your views. Now on the subject of cowardice, let me give you an example: misrepresenting a member's prior posts to suggest that he agrees and supports what Harry wrote and implcitly committed LM because you are bothered by criticism of the LM laws and the way they are applied here. It does serve your purpose of chilling dissenting views on the subject. It also illustrates the fundamental problem with this law: the twisted manner in which it can be applied. And it demonstrates both extreme desperation with a losing argument and appalling cowardice. Let's call this for what it really is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
playtheblues Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 You didn't get my not so subtle ironic logic: You said that the reason for discussing Harry instead of the issues of principle is that the latter subject is so boring. So then I conclude that discussing Harry is more exciting. Am I clear now? I got it OK. But your conclusion is flawed. I just don't think 'exciting' is necessarily the opposite of 'boring'. 'Interesting' is the word I'd have used in that context. And' date=' in the cause of clarification, that's only [b']my[/b] reason, not the reason for discussing Harry instead of discussing the issues of principle. Others may have other reasons. How is the discussion going BTW? So this totally insignificant "dumbass" and "moron" is actually an "interesting" person? No, not you and nobody else find this person interesting. As has been said before (and elaborated by Gadfly) the focus on the trivial subject of Nicolaides' personality or (lack of) character serves to deflect the attention from the real issue, namely the fundamental flaw of this law. Since this bias in the discussion now should be evident to anybody reading this thread I would say that the discussion is going quite well, thank you. But I agree with you that it's a risky debate for this forum, exactly because the law is so ambigous and can be used for purposes other than what was originally intended. Since this is also your view we maybe can agree that Nicolaides maybe did not know exactly what he was doing when he broke the law . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khunsanuk Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 Hi, "KS are you on leave?" No, why would you think so? Sanuk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckwoww Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 So this totally insignificant "dumbass" and "moron" is actually an "interesting" person? No, not you and nobody else find this person interesting. As has been said before (and elaborated by Gadfly) the focus on the trivial subject of Nicolaides' personality or (lack of) character serves to deflect the attention from the real issue, namely the fundamental flaw of this law. Since this bias in the discussion now should be evident to anybody reading this thread I would say that the discussion is going quite well, thank you. But I agree with you that it's a risky debate for this forum, exactly because the law is so ambigous and can be used for purposes other than what was originally intended. Since this is also your view we maybe can agree that Nicolaides maybe did not know exactly what he was doing when he broke the law . I find him interesting yes. I can only speak for myself. He got himself into an extreme position and I'm interested to see how he handles it. I think you'll find that farang who get themselves in trouble are of general interest to this board. I think it is those who insist on talking about the lese majeste laws who are deflecting the issue from Harry. As I keep saying the solution is simple. Start another thread about the lese majeste laws. I'll even help you get started. Here are the main talking points again... 1. Stupid law (repeat this often). 2. Even HM thinks so (important point). 3. Harsh sentence (Wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy etc. sore bum [optional]) 4. Bad effect on the Thai economy (debatable). 5. And everybody's favourite...Makes Thailand look ridiculous. Feel free to add any points I may have missed. Yes the debate is risky. The free speech warriors who hide behind pseudonyms could get us all in trouble. All the more reason for a separate thread so that KS can shut it down when the anonymous zealots get carried away. As to whether Harry knew what he was doing I would suggest you haven't been keeping up with the discussion... Try this... http://www.smh.com.au/national/martyr-to-his-literary-ambition-20090222-8er6.html I'd agree he probably didn't expect to find himself in jail (he was on his way out when he got arrested) but it's obvious from his own words (see introduction to his book) that he was seeking controversy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozpharlap Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 With respect, this dumb ass's personality is part of the equation. Some of us, do not think the law is such an ass or if it is, that the Thai populous should be the ones that change it. If you want to change it or others, like Harry, well then go and do it the right way - petitions, lobbying government organisations etc. I have never heard of anyone getting locked up for a lengthy time over LM. The associated actions that went with LM (damaging public property or malicious defamation) may probably carry an equivalent sentence to what those individuals served in prison, if you were an ordinary Thai person, who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaiHome Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 I think it is much more interesting to discuss a foreigner that appears to have deliberately used the LM laws in order to get publicity for himself. Not much point in discussing the law itself, since there is little doubt as to what the consensus on this board would be. Your insistence on wanting to discuss the law itself rather then someone who appears to using it for his own self interest, makes it appear all you want to do is have another thread where you can say the same things you say in every other thread. TH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozpharlap Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 A good summation of the points and the Sydney Morning Herald article was quite insightful. One must not forget, that Thailand is still an emerging nation and the social engineering that lese majeste encourages is national harmony based on a monarchial body. As Paul Handley once wrote, â??In Thailand, all that truly stands between royal virtue and London-tabloid-style media treatment is the lèse majesté statute.â? Link One may say, that a nation could loose it's identity or values by the erosion of a State's morality doctrines - be they right or wrong. It may be, that once the King passes from this world that an upswell may occur, and that LM is abolished - long live the King! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
playtheblues Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 Thanks for the link, I was not aware of it. Obviously it puts his individual case in another light and, yes, makes him sort of "interesting". Even so i insist that the principal issue is the law itself since also less obvious media attention seekers might get into jail for unknowingly "breaking" this law. But again, all the points have been made in this discussion (I have taken note of your summing up), so I return to my lethargic and hedomistic otium cum dignitate here in the Land of Smiles. Some might dispute the dignitate part of it in my case, though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.