Gaybutton

I fully agree with you. This evening I didn't go into any of the go-go bars, but the beer bars all had plenty of customers and plenty of boys. In my opinion, those who insist Sunee Plaza is in its death throes are either people who either don't know what they're talking about or people with some sort of agenda to portray it that way. Nothing could be further from the reality.

Those of us who were there are grateful you kept that promise. Aren't you going to tell us all about how Yingluck is one of your "dear friends" and how you've been invited to her inauguration dinner?

They say turnabout is fair play. Maybe this time Abhisit will be the one who has to flee the country to avoid a prison term. Of course, maybe justice would be served if both Abhisit and Thaksin end up sharing a cell.

A friend was speaking to a Thai woman who was saying she thinks Abhisit and Thaksin are both corrupt. The difference, she said, was at least Thaksin was doing things that were of some help to the people. Abhisit was only helping his friends. I don't know how true that is, but I believe her view reflects that of a great many Thais. The thing I dislike is the perception that Yingluck's victory means Thaksin won. When Clinton was president, a joke was, "The Secret Service has dramatically increased Hillary's protection. If something ever happens to her, Bill becomes President." I can't help but wonder if the Thai perception is if anything ever happens to Thaksin, Yingluck becomes Prime Minister . . .

I'd say the chances of that are roughly equivalent to getting LMTU, or me for that matter, to be quiet. I believe very few Thais saw this election as a vote for Yingluck. I believe most probably saw it as either a vote against Abhisit and/or a vote for Thaksin. I believe the majority of people who voted for her are hoping Thaksin will be able to come back with impunity and run the country. There are still a lot of Yellow-Shirts out there. It would be nice if whatever takes place now occurs legally and peacefully, but I think it's far too soon to make predictions one way or the other. I think Yingluck's toughest job now is going to be playing her cards right and winning over those opposed to Thaksin. I don't think that's going to be easy. I believe if six months go by, after she takes office, and there has been no coups or civil unrest, then she stands a good chance of success. Who knows? There could be rioting, violence, coups, and lord-knows-what. She also could turn out to be the best thing that's ever happened to Thailand. She won the election. She deserves her chance. The Thai people overwhelmingly wanted her and her party to win. I hope it all goes well, but I'm not ready to bet the farm just yet that it will.

That remains to be seen. Don't forget, the Shinawatra name to Thailand seems to hold a clout very similar to the clout the Kennedy name had in the USA. If Yingluck had been an ordinary politician instead of Thaksin's sister, what chance would she have had to win this election? As far as I know, she's never held a political office in her life - until now.

In Thailand, who knows? What I am expecting is since the Thai Supreme Court has upheld Thaksin's conviction and asset seizure, it's going to be difficult for any government official, including Thaksin's sister to overturn that. I don't know what kind of pardon power she would have as Prime Minister. Even if she can unilaterally pardon Thaksin and restore his assets, I doubt she would be stupid enough to actually go through with it, at least not any time soon. With the military, if another coup is in the offing, I don't think it will happen right away. I think if Yingluck does make a serious attempt to bring Thaksin back or if the military sees her as merely acting as his puppet, if the military is going to step in, that's when they would do it. After all, this is the same military that threw Thaksin out in the first place. Whatever she is, I don't think Yingluck is stupid and I don't think she would fail to see the risks involving the military. My guess is she already has had private talks with the military leadership and agreements have been probably been struck behind the scenes. In a CNN article about the election results, the last two paragraphs say: http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/07/03/thailand.election/index.html

I'm sure many did. Did you happen to notice the article was published June 3, not July 3 and the signature campaign was to take place on June 18? My calendar says this month is July . . .

I think you meant to say, "They are now appearing . . ." The report is there and you posted a link to it.

You want to bet? You definitely need new spies.

The bar is open and operating normally.

Then you need new spies. You also need new excuses. I never denied talking about it among close friends. Of course I did. I'm as curious as anybody else, but I also have enough respect for Mike's privacy that I didn't post personal information or unsubstantiated stories about him, did I? You can imagine for yourself what my "spies" tell me about you. You're not the only one with "spies." But I have enough respect for your privacy not to post anything about you that you didn't first post yourself. Go ahead and keep denying you're writing about Mike. Now tell us all about how Joe asked you to write a damned thing. Tell us all about how you contacted Mike, got the story directly from him, and with his permission posted personal details about him.

When it comes to other people's personal information, that's exactly what I'm saying. I've already said it's not possible to stop people from gossiping among themselves. People do. I've never met anyone who doesn't. But it's a different story when it comes to putting it in writing and posting it. Sure, the US Supreme Court might say it's ok. But not everyone on these boards comes from the USA. I'm sorry, but I think posting people's private affairs is wrong, whether the law says it's ok or not, and I can't think of anything that would make it right.

Truth or not, you have no business posting about Mike's personal affairs, regardless of whether you think you're doing him a favor, which I'm willing to bet he never asked you to do. And, by the way, your version of "the truth" might not even be correct in the first place. You're right, people are gossiping and so far I've heard over half a dozen different versions, from reliable people, of what actually took place. You're not going to see me posting any of them and unless you have personally been in touch with Mike, which again I doubt, you don't know anything more than anyone else around here. Do you think I ought to post all the different versions and just let people decide for themselves which one is accurate? As I said, if Mike wants to say what happened, why can't you let him be the one to do it? I think you were way out of line to submit that post, but I don't think you'll ever admit it. Based on everything you've ever posted, you've never done anything wrong or inappropriate in your life.

I understand the interest. That's not the problem. The problem is posting personal information. I repeat: The bar is open and in business. Mike has gone. What else does anyone need to know? I fail to see any excuse as to why this man's personal affairs are anyone's business but his own. I don't think many board members would appreciate it if someone started posting personal information about them. If a board starts allowing personal information about people to be posted, where does it end? Would you want people to post personal information about you without even asking first? I know of no rule, written or implied, that says people have a right to privacy - unless they happen to be well known, own a bar, advertise it, or simply a lot of people are curious. Many people always seem to be fine with this sort of thing - as long as it happens to somebody else. I agree that it would have been nice if Mike had posted, or at least authorized someone else to post for him, telling us what happened and why he left. But he didn't. Maybe he has very good reasons why he didn't. If he wants to tell his story, he will. If he doesn't, that should be his decision, not the decision of someone else. Why the hell people can't just leave him alone goes beyond me.

Geezer is right. I posted nothing he hadn't said himself. To me personal information is just that - personal. I draw the line at common sense, but yes I would not post that you speak French unless I first asked you if it was ok, you had posted that yourself somewhere along the line, if you were not someone I knew well enough to know there is no way it would bother you, or if I had no valid reason to post it. And I certainly wouldn't post it if there was any reason to believe it could be damaging to you or to try to use your information just to make myself look important on the boards. Maybe that might seem ridiculous, but your privacy is yours. It is not my place to reveal anything I might know about you personally without your permission. I see no reason in the world why any personal information about others belongs in posts on message boards.

I'd say it depends upon the format that it's publicly available. If it's in the news media, then I don't see a problem. If it stems from gossip, I see a big problem. No matter what it is and no matter what the reason, nobody is justified in posting personal information about anyone on these boards. As for the job the moderators do here, since it's rather obvious I'm the "jerk" Michael refers to, nobody is perfect and that includes moderators. I have no dispute with the job they usually do here, but this is one time I am in full disagreement about letting the original post on this thread stand. That's not telling them how to do their job. It's disagreeing with letting that post remain and I think I'm right about that. If Michael wants to resort to name calling, whether he meant me or someone else, that's his affair. When a post ought to be removed, for reasons that go beyond me some people consider the post so important that it practically takes a Supreme Court decision to remove it. To me, if a post contains personal "information" about someone, then it should instantly be removed, period. That's my opinion. I'm still waiting for someone to explain why a post containing personal "information" about La Cage Mike was necessary and apparently is acceptable.

I don't agree with that at all. I think it shows unjustifiable disrespect for the target of the post. You keep changing the issue. The issue is not what other mods would or would not have done, respect for posters views, whether gossip is harmful, or who does the gossiping. The issue is whether posting personal information about others without their permission is acceptable. It isn't. If something ever happens to you, do you really find it acceptable for HeyGay or anyone else to go running to the boards to post personal information about you without at least first contacting you and getting your permission and respecting your wishes if you deny that permission? I can't speak for others, but I'm a hell of a lot more concerned about people's privacy than I am about whether people get to express their views. He can deny it as much as he wants, but that does not alter the fact that personal "information" is in that post and the man's privacy was violated. All I can say is if I were still a moderator here, I would not have deleted the post based on who wrote it, but I definitely would have deleted it based on its content.

You were in the right place, but much too early. Get there around 10:00pm or so and look starting from there and work your way up to Saranrom Park. I've seen guys in uniform looking for customers in that area many times before. I don't know why, but from my own observations, the guys in uniform tend to do be closer to the Grand Palace area. The "regular" boys usually are in the Saranrom Park area.

As a moderator, that's your job.

Why?

That's a different issue. You're not going to diminish the seriousness of posting personal information about people by saying verbal gossip is wrong too. Right or wrong, it's an exercise in futility to think back-fence gossip will ever stop. It won't and you can't do anything about what people will chit-chat about. Yes, I do see it as an entirely different and an infinitely more serious and far reaching matter when someone's personal information is posted on a message board without permission. Talk is one thing. Putting it in writing and publicly posting it is something else. That can and should be forbidden and that's the issue.

I can't answer the part about how many, but I know of at least one who would have. Me. I don't care who it is or what the reason is, but I don't think a message board should be used to violate anyone's privacy under any circumstances. There is no excuse for it. To me, violating someone's privacy on any of these message boards, no matter what the reason might be, is the worst possible type of violation and I would hope no responsible board owner or board moderator would tolerate it.

Are you actually saying you see no difference between idle gossipy chit-chat among some gossip queens in Sunee Plaza and posting this kind of "information"? I see a tremendous difference. You're entitled to your opinion. And I'm entitled to mine. My opinion? I think what HeyGay did stinks. Now we'll see how many people think HeyGay did nothing wrong by his post and how many lean more toward my point of view.

That makes it perfectly ok to write that post, doesn't it? And, of course, you just had to post it. Naturally you made sure to let them know you intended to inform the world of what they said and made sure it was perfectly ok with them for you to post that, didn't you? Of course you did. After all, you would never dream of posting without asking them first if it's ok and of course your post had nothing at all to do with personal information about Mike. Why, that should be obvious to anyone who reads it. I nearly forgot that whenever someone has "inside information," they always go running to you with it. Not anyone else, just you. How could I possibly have forgotten that?