Since our post of last week canvassing the issue of a boycott of the 10th International Conference of Thai Studies (ICTS) there has been considerable debate and discussion. Some of this has taken place publicly on New Mandala itself, but there have also been numerous off-line email contributions (we have been party to some of these exchanges, others have been forwarded to us).
At this stage it seems useful to summarise some of the key points of this ongoing discussion.
• In general there appears to be limited support for a boycott, primarily because it would limit academic exchange and discussion.
• Some consider a boycott would be ineffective in terms of having any meaningful impact on the Thai political situation or on broader issues of intellectual freedom. As one email contributor wrote: “I am certain that a boycott would only impede the open exchange of knowledge and interpretations of these issues rather than have any influence in changing government (and societal) practices regarding censorship.”
• Some argue that there are unlikely to be real restrictions on freedom of discussion at the conference. One very experienced Thai studies scholar wrote (in an email to colleagues): “I cannot recall any paper or panel at a conference held in Thailand being rejected because the topic was sensitive or too provocative.”
• Some consider that a boycott would be a missed opportunity as the conference potentially provides a forum for sustained academic critique. A number of scholars have canvassed various options for “protest” at the conference, drawing inspiration from protests staged at previous Thai conferences that were held in contexts of political repression.
• Some point out that, if the coup makers keep their word, the conference is likely to take place under a new democratically elected government in Thailand.
These contributions are a welcome opening up of the issue of academic freedom at the ICTS. From our point of view, and that of a number of other contributors to the discussion, a key initial test for the ICTS will be whether or not organisers will accept panel and paper proposals that clearly involve critical academic commentary on the monarchy, the monarchy’s role in the coup, the monarchy’s support for the current military regime and various initiatives and policies strongly associated with the monarchy (such as sufficiency economy). There is surely some doubt about this given the explicit role of the conference in honouring the king and his various achievements. New Mandala has seen one official letter from the conference organisers that has been circulated in Thailand in which this is set out as the primary objective. Some may consider this framing of the conference to be merely a symbolic gesture. Others are reading rather more into it.
Last week New Mandala wrote to the organisers inviting them to respond to the issues raised in our previous post. We would be very happy to host a detailed post from them setting out their position. At this stage we have received no response. We agree with the sentiments of another academic contributor to this debate:
But if they [the conference organisers] agree … that academic freedom is the real issue to prevent the boycott, I think they should issue a statement … unequivocally assuring that academic freedom is guaranteed at the conference. But if they cannot assure freedom for these scholars, or if they are equivocal about it, I think the boycott would gain momentum.
28 responses so far ↓
1 Thaiedup // Mar 23, 2007 at 9:00 pm
As regards the statement “I cannot recall any paper or panel at a conference held in Thailand being rejected because the topic was sensitive or too provocative” – it made me think back to the 8th ICTS in Nakhorn Phanom, which I attended when I was still a student. At one point I was talking to an anthropologist from the Netherlands. She told me that she had initially submitted a paper on the cult surrounding Rama V, but this subject had been deemed too controversial by the organizers of the 8th ICTS. As far as I remember,she told me that this was conveyed to her in rather veiled terms. The message, however, was clear: the paper would not be accepted. She subsequently changed her subject and submitted an entirely different paper on modern asceticism among the thai middle class.
2 Republican // Mar 23, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Reply to the points made in the “Thai Studies Boycott? An Update” posting:
1. I find it hard to understand how, in this age of email, internet newspapers and academic journals, blog sites, and cheap international travel, a boycott of this conference would “limit academic exchange and discussion”. One must be very deprived indeed if your only intellectual exchange with Thailand is attending the ITSC. The issue was not whether to boycott all relations with Thai academia, but whether it is ethical to attend a conference held for the main purpose of honouring the king (given the king’s support for the coup and current dictatorship), and at Thammasat University, whose Rector has bent over backwards to do the bidding of the military regime.
2. Of course a boycott would not have “any meaningful impact on the Thai political situation or on broader issues of intellectual freedom…” But it would have a significant effect on the image of the monarchy and Thammasat University in Thailand if the international Thai Studies community made a clear statement that it would not give its support to (let alone “honour”) a king who supports dictatorship, and a Rector who allows himself to be a tool of the dictatorship.
One simply has to understand the importance of the legitimizing function of international academic institutions for a developing country like Thailand. We know that the King is in the Guinness Book of Records for having the most honorary degrees. That is not an accident. Add to these the degrees that the other members of the royal family have been awarded. We know the rumours about how universities around the world have been approached to award honorary degrees to members of the Thai royal family, in return for favours. We know how they abuse their reputation for academic brilliance in Thailand, and how the whole higher education system suffers because of it. And we know how NONE OF THIS CAN BE SAID IN THAILAND BECAUSE OF LESE MAJESTE. In other words, acceptance by the international academic community is absolutely crucial to the position of the monarchy in Thailand. There is not a shadow of doubt that the ICTS will be milked for royalist propaganda purposes, as a statement of the “honour paid to the king by the leading scholars from around the world on the auspicious occasion of his 80th birthday”. Why allow oneself to be used in this way?
As for Thammasat, it has completely betrayed its tradition of being a bastion of liberal, critical, progressive thinking. Many of its most prominent social scientists joined the movement to overthrow a democratically elected government last year. Now its current Rector, former Rector, and assorted academics appear to have no qualms to serve a dictatorship – and to be paid handsomely for the honour. Why reward them with international academic credibility?
3. To the “very experienced Thai studies scholar”: it must be nice for you with your PhD and Ivy League professorship to have the liberty to present your papers on “provocative” and “sensitive” topics at Thai Studies conferences. Well, for millions of Thai citizens (sorry, “subjects”) they are denied the right to even utter a word of criticism of the monarchy, even after their government has been stolen from them and while they are forced to swallow the sufficiency economy garbage. Yet you would “honour the king” by attending this conference; have I got that right?
4. “Some point out that, if the coup makers keep their word…” I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I read this one. What a sad comment on the quality of international Thai Studies scholarship when “scholars” actually believe what a military junta says. So these people trust a royalist dictatorship that has just stolen a democratically elected government at gunpoint (not to mention the trillion baht budget that the government controls – and they have the shamelessness to call Thaksin corrupt!) to keep its word?
But supposing we suspend our disbelief and trust the words of a military junta, the argument that Thailand might have a democratically elected government in Jan next year is in any case irrelevant. Thammasat is calling for papers NOW, under the conditions of a royalist dictatorship. The time to speak out is NOW. If anyone has the faintest understanding of the situation in Thailand now you would know that the regime is totally in control: of the military, the government, the mass media, and most ominously the Constitutional Drafting Panel. It is doing everything in its power to make sure that it entrenches its political position in the future under the guise of a “democratic” system. I ask again, why honour the king and Thammasat for this?
3 nganadeeleg // Mar 24, 2007 at 9:23 am
Republican said: “If anyone has the faintest understanding of the situation in Thailand now you would know that the regime is totally in control: of the military, the government, the mass media, and most ominously the Constitutional Drafting Panel.”
The running commentary in Thai newspapers seems, if anything, to suggest that the regime lacks control. You keep talking of dictatorships but the reality is that your beloved Thaksin was more like a dictator than either Surayud, Sonthi or Prem.
Obviously, anyone who thinks they are being ‘used’ are free to boycott the conference if they wish.
4 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Mar 24, 2007 at 2:05 pm
If I say I totally agree with Republican, that I fell like clapping and shouting to support his view, would I be accused of Less Majeste?
(Not by any of you, but by the thai authorities)
Well, I’m not quite sure.
And frankly, I’m too scared to take the risk.
I should also note here the irony that this discussion could not be conducted in Thai, or at places (websites or any other medium)
more open to Thai readership (including the authorities). Even at Thammasat, where it’s often boasted that “there’s Freedom every inch”.
Should this situation alone not enough to make any talk of the Conference as “academic” (”academic” gathering, “academic” exchange, etc.) rather strange?
5 Jack // Mar 24, 2007 at 3:26 pm
It seems to me as an amateur observer that it is not the respect of Thailand in the international community that is at stake over whether this meeting goes ahead with international attendees. Rather it is the self-respect of Thai Studies scholars, and the respect for their discipline in the wider academic community.
The game has changed significantly post-Handley. Legitimate academic meetings in Thailand can no longer be expected to skirt monarchy issues as if they didn’t exist. But that is exactly what the Thai authorities will expect. The notion that academic freedom in Thailand might be conceded to be more important than a deity is inconceivable.
By meeting in Thailand – under the terms likely to be imposed – the legitimacy of Thai Studies would be called into question.
A better course would be to boycott the meeting in Thailand, and schedule a parallel meeting at the same time OUTSIDE Thailand, where matters can be discussed openly. It would be good if funding could be found to invite legitimate scholars from within Thailand to this meeting, although it might be too ‘hot’ for them to do so.
6 Meg // Mar 24, 2007 at 9:53 pm
If the conference takes place and people attend, the military junta can point at it and say “See, we don’t censor anything. Academics are free to say what they like.” – then show the list of attendants – “and those people here think this is a good way to do it. Otherwise they wouldn’t be there”.
If you feel such a conference is uncensored, I guess you can go. If it is censored and you do not mind supporting that idea publicly, I guess you can go. If it is censored and you do not want to put your approving signature below that, then I guess you probably shouldn’t go.
7 Sawarin // Mar 25, 2007 at 7:39 am
Just another conference for ‘inter’national academics to add a line to their CV, and just another coup for Thais to endure, why bother to be so complex? (most of you don’t even live in Thailand permanently anyway). I wish someone has guts to speak out loud- ‘what will others think of me if I go?’ Attending or not is to do with your reputation and politics. Drop those ‘academic freedom’, ‘ethics’, or ‘exchange of knowledge’, will you? I got sick reading them.
Staging a protest? Hundreds of Thais gathered at Sanam Luang a few days back but they didn’t even get a headline (how many of you knew this?).
‘Feeling guilty is not a sign of high morality’- applying to whom it may concern.
8 John Francis Lee // Mar 25, 2007 at 11:54 pm
I am an Ameican and the past six years of American history have taught me that all governments are corrupt. “My” government is composed of war criminals. In time no one will anymore bat an eyelash at that statement than they do presently at the statement that the Third Reich was composed of war criminals.
Every few weeks I read in the Thai papers that the US is expressing its opinions on the government of Thailand, or about Thais human rights record. The brazen absurdity of such statements coming from a nation presently engaged in an aggressive war, a nation which has murdered at least a half million, more probably a million wholly innocent Iraqis and totally destroyed a nation turns my stomach.
Would any of you consider boycotting an academic conference in the United States to express your revulsion with my criminal nation? How about the US’ junior, but equally guilty partners, the UK and Australia?
Apparently no problem there either, eh?
If you can contribute to Thai studies by meeting with your colleagues wherever they meet, under whatever corrupt regime they are forced to, then go and do so.
Speak freely where and when you can. There is no need for you to call down the wrath of corrupt regimes upon your own heads. Neither is there a need for you to be overly concerned about the imagined effects your presence or abscence will have anywhere on this earth, certainly not in Thailand.
9 Pig Latin // Mar 26, 2007 at 1:19 am
An American, John Francis Lee?
What part of America are you from? Brazil? Canada? Guatemala? Cuba?! The US is so corrupt it has even corrupted your location!
Also, for Hobbes speech is simply an environmental reaction and that the notion of collective freedom or liberty (except in the cases of physical movement) is the most ominous oppression of the truth. Who is more right than Hobbes?! Hegel! Your havin’ a larf!
At least in Thailand there is obvious censorship. Look at this from the glass half full scenario! Thai corruption is not riddled with loop-hole black gold legal agreements and is there for all to see! (or not). The censored materials become mysterious and prized, unlike here where most things are accessible and we are a beige desensitized. That is what attracted me to Thailand and South East Asia at large to begin with.. the mystery.
Maybe my views are regressive for the development of Thai people, but is it not for Thai people to decide that they are victims and to rise up and overthrow whoever they collectively feel is oppressing their desire for balanced intellectualism? “National self determination” I seem to remember worked its way into the charter that nobody pays any attention too.
If not, surely this provides further food for the department of Thai studies!? Please not more post modern political correctness!!!
Yours truly,
Simpleton P. Latin.
10 Meg // Mar 26, 2007 at 1:42 am
You act as if those poor Thai academics could only enjoy serious discussions at conferences like these.
Chances are the material they get from a simple Google search is more useful, detailed, uncensored and truthful than anything that ever will be presented there.
11 somsak jeamteerasakul // Mar 26, 2007 at 2:03 am
Re: Khun John Francis Lee,
I’m not disputing a large part of your analyses of the US government.
But there are significant – you could say “qualitative” – differences between it and the kind of state here in Thailand.
Just a few obvious points, pertaining to the current discussion.
There’s no Less Majeste law in the US.
You can criticise, mock, comdemn Bush as much as you like. And in any case he couldn’t stay in power for more than 8 years.
Also he is not the ‘power above the constitution’ (my phrase) who could openly or secretly support an overthrown of a constitution, an elective parliament and government, with impunity, indeed without even the possibility of just being MENTIONED what he does !
Need I say more?
P.S. I’m just saying what Bush is not. I’m not refering to anyone. And I’m defenitely not making an argument either for or against the suggested boycott.
12 Sawarin // Mar 26, 2007 at 3:07 am
John Francis Lee, why don’t stop reading and try going to live in
one the following countries;
Vietnam, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Chagos Island, Palestine, North Korea, Haiti, Indonesia, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq.
Then, come back to talk ‘liberty’ again.
13 John Francis Lee // Mar 26, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Khun Somsak,
It may be that US presidents’ individual terms are limited to eight years, but George XLI begat George XLIII and in general the class of political yeoman that has evolved in the US to serve the interests of the plutocrats is not unlike an hereditary “elite”.
The PATRIOT Act, the MCA (which effectively has suspended habeas corpus, the now routine spying on American citizens by the NSA and the FBI, the elimination of congressional review of federal judicial appointments, the numerous “signing statements” of George XLIII wherein he makes plain his intent to ignore the very law he is “signing”… it is easily seen that the present Neocon regime is engaged in a frontal attack on the Constitution and further, proclaims the the “unitary executive” is above it.
So, yes, you do need say more.
Khun Sawarin,
“Stop reading” is strange advice from an “intellectual”. Other than changing the subject, what has your random list of nations to do with the United States sickening gyre?
Khun Simpleton,
Years ago I made the mistake of referring to a Canadian as an American and was met with a very insulted Canuck. “The world considers ‘America’ to refer to the United States!” quoth he, and he then made plain that he would not be tarred with that brush.
If that is your point.
On the whole I do not understand your point, although your sputtering rage and hostility are not lost. I’m afraid your criticism is too simple for me. I don’t understand your references to Hobbes, Hegel, black gold mysteries, your preference for regression, or disdain for post-modernism. Whatever that is. Sorry. Thanks for making the effort however.
14 Tosakan // Mar 26, 2007 at 8:26 pm
JFL-
Your comparison and your criticism is based on fallacious reasoning.
1. The question is to boycott a Thai Studies conference in Thailand or not because of official and unofficial censorship.
2. This question has nothing to do with the United States.
3. Even if we were to compare it with the US, the equivalence would be “Should an International American Studies conference be boycotted in the US because of official and unofficial censorship? If criticizing the US government at an American studies conference against the law, should it be boycotted because it infringes on academic freedom?
These questions would never even come up in the US because academic and freedom of speech exist there. There would be quite a lot of criticism of the US government at any international American studies conference. In fact, most American Studies programs are mostly comprised of critical theorists, who have no problems attacking the sacred cows in the US society.
Thai studies scholars, on the other hand, are mostly comprised of ass kissers and sycophants, who will do everything in their power not to rock the boat. I guarantee that most will be dressed in yellow and singing the praises of the king.
Which do you think it will be the case: Standing up for academic freedom,standing up for democratic principles, or kissing a lot of royalist ass in order to preserve good feelings and social cohesion? I am choosing c.
As for the name America or American, the argument as to whether US citizens should be called Americans or not is so stupid that it is a waste of time.
What else should they be called?
Citizens of the US?
But the problem with that is that both Mexico and Brazil have the United States integrated into their official names.
United States of Mexico, United States of Brazil
There is only only one United States of America, which is the official name. And why the hell does it matter to other North Americans and South Americans what the people of the USA call themselves?
I’ve never heard an American get upset because Mexico and Brazil called themselves the United States of Mexico, or the United States of Brazil. Also, I have never heard a US American get upset because a Canadian or a Peruvian referred to themselves as Americans.
Only those folks from countries with low self-esteem seem to make a big deal about it.
15 Srithanonchai // Mar 26, 2007 at 9:00 pm
I wonder why all this comes up now. Censorship and self-censorship concerning certain issues have always played roles in foreigners and Thais doing political research in Thailand, and taking part in Thai Studies Conferences, both here in Thailand and abroad.
16 somsak jeamteerasakul // Mar 26, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Khun John Francis Lee,
Well, here another example of the difference :
You CAN say what you just said to me anywhere, anytime in the US.
But if I were to say something similar, i.e. sharp criticisms of certain persons or institution/s intimately involved with this coup, I would be at great risk of long jail-sentence.
Or take the Patriot Act. You can criticize, organize a protest against it openly, can you not?
But you cannot do that to the Less Majeste law here. True, some brave voices have been raised against the application of it in recent times. Notice: just against its application, because virtually no one can challange or demand the end of the law itself. Even these (criticism of its application) are very rare, very limited and carry certain risk.
17 John Francis Lee // Mar 26, 2007 at 10:16 pm
I have no “free advice” for Thais on their conduct within their own country, or outside it come to think of it.
My interest in this issue was originally due to what I thought were hypercritical attitudes of some about Thai politics and society while at the same time no such criticism of our own anglo-american-australian nations which wreck much more serious havoc outside their own borders was on offer at all. A question of people who live in glass houses not throwing stones.
As well I am furious and heart-broken at the conduct of my own country.
If there is a question of mean-spirited criticism I thought I saw it more clearly in the attacks on Thailand than I did in the concern about awarding a degree in law to the former premier of Singapore.
What ever might be said about Thai politics and society, Thailand is not a danger to the lives and livelihood of other peoples outside its borders.
18 nganadeeleg // Mar 26, 2007 at 11:01 pm
JFL: Your post #8 is the most sensible thing I have seen written on this boycott subject.
I am currently reading Handley’s book and apart from the obvious spin, the other themes that come through clearly are how currupt & power hungry politicians are, and the role of the US in thai politics over several decades.
Handley documents how US policies were crucial in building up the king’s image – Quite ironic how this discussion about boycotting a conference because it might help honour the king, has degenerated in to a defence of US government and it’s freedoms.
19 Pig Latin // Mar 26, 2007 at 11:17 pm
JFL, Some clarification – Firstly I used to live with a woman from Chile who was most offended whenever I referred to the US as America.
Secondly, my reference to Hobbes and post modern political correctness was meant to suggest that how power is used or abused has remained the same in spite of grammatical change. That from the outside Thai political subversiveness is much more obvious to us on the outside, whilst living on the inside of the West our own corruption is much less visible because we are indirectly apart of it.
Hopefully this has been less spluttering tirade
20 Sawarin // Mar 27, 2007 at 12:44 am
Re: John Francis Lee
That wasn’t a random ‘list’. They are living places with real people struggling to get by from the impacts of the US’s Cold War/defence policies. Yes, Iraq is one of the sickening ‘gyre’.
Have you been on a received end?
Ask yourself this question before urging people to ’speak freely where and when you can’.
The same logic applies to other readers who defend academic freedom, exchange of knowledge, liberty, reason, etc.
21 david w // Mar 27, 2007 at 8:29 am
I am struck as is Srithanonchai – why is the issue of censorship and self-censorship in scholarship and its presentation at scholarly venues so intense now as to lead to calls for a boycott? I can only presume it has much to do with the release of Handley’s book and the way it has energized critics of the monarchy to be more public in their criticisms. So I have two questions:
1) To what degree has the issue of censorship ever been raised regarding previous Thai Studies Conferences, wherever they took place; particularly regarding the issue of the monarchy?
2) Are there other examples of censorship know to readers that parallel the example raised by “Thaiedup” in the first post of this thread.
22 John Francis Lee // Mar 27, 2007 at 4:03 pm
sawarin :
Frankly, I’d misunderstood you. I thought you were deriding the countries in your list as “unfree” and holding up the USA in contrast : The bastion of “liberty”. People reflexively and defensively “defending” the USA from critics within often “ask”… “Yeah, well, if you hate the US so much why don’t you go live in… ?” And then run of a list of countries such as yours. So rather than get into a shouting match with someone I took for a brawler, I dismissed you out of hand. I should not have done that in any case and It appears that I was well off base in my sterotypical characterization of you to boot. I apologize.
23 somsak jeamteerasakul // Mar 27, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Re: Khun david w. writes :
“I am struck as is Srithanonchai – why is the issue of censorship and self-censorship in scholarship and its presentation at scholarly venues so intense now as to lead to calls for a boycott? I can only presume it has much to do with the release of Handley’s book….”
No, not quite. First of all this is the first coup in 15 years! There’s been no talk of boycott because there’s no coup for 15 years. Secondly, This is not only the first coup in 15 years but the first in 30 years that the monarchy is being suspected of direct involvement. Also, the degree to which a gathering like this is being used to promote the monarchy (while its involvement with a coup is concurrently suspected) is NOT something that happened previously – as far as I can remember. After all, His Majesty wasn’t 80 years old every time a conference was held, he was not proposing a ‘theory of Sufficient Economy’ and an intense campaign to celebrate/endorse both didn’t happen everytime a conference was held.
In short, I don’t think yours and khun srithanonchai’s question is relevant.
P.S. I’m still not arguing one way or another about the boycott proposal itself (as I said, still too scared!) Just trying to explain the obvious: why there should be such proposal now.
24 Sawarin // Mar 28, 2007 at 12:22 am
John Francis Lee:
It’s partly my fault for not making myself clear enough. I don’t have a literary prowess to carry people away to the game of language. Can’t stand why human beings bother to publish books or write miles of words while we can sum up our thought in half A4 page. So, no need to aplogise, really.
Regarding the incoming Thai Studies Conference, I maintain my point. I don’t think any of us who’ve never been on the receiving end have the rights to speak the language of ‘freedom’, ‘liberty’, or ‘reason’. Four years ago I met a family whose three generations of men are rubber planters– what does this imply about this coup or history of Thailand’s coups?
It’s all about keeping people at the same place.
How this social reality (yes, reality* not theory or that elusive term academics called empiricism) relates to the boycott/attendance of the conference, you intelligent people decide for youself. But I pledge people who are defending ‘academic freedom’ to shut up. It absruds to hear people ‘who had it so good’ keep on voicing their concern wheras all that victims can do is to get by.
Have enough of this.
25 Srithanonchai // Mar 28, 2007 at 1:24 am
Khun Somsak: I am not so sure that the reasons for the prominence of the issue of a boycott are obvious. It seems that people have different reasons, or combinations of reasons, to argue for a boycott: support of the military government (there will probably have been an election before the conference); the conference organizers using foreign academics as tools for unprecedented royalist propaganda (this remains an assumption; this issue is about unethical academic behavior); censorship in face of crucial questions concerning the current and future political order of Thailand (what you refer to as the combination of coup and monarchy). Finally, most Thai and foreign academics are probably not at all “concerned.”
P.S.: I also don’t think that Handley’s book has anything much to do with it.
26 jeplang // Mar 29, 2007 at 3:19 am
Infrequently Andrew posts a commentary that gets the troops stirred up and the comments come a-flying.
I like it.I enjoy it,and then ,because of much of what is discussed is unknown to me , google gets a hammering.
27 Historicus // Apr 2, 2007 at 6:30 am
Chang Noi in today’s Nation has a commentary on this debate. Note two errors: (i) the mini-symposium at Cornell was not held under the title Chang Noi gives it. The title was: Issues in Contemporary Thai Politics; (ii) Chang Noi says, “The Royal association with these conferences is nothing new. In the past it has been a tradition for HRH Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn to preside over the opening ceremony and listen to the keynote address.” I have attended 5 of these events, and I know of no such tradition. I suggest that this is recent – not a “tradition” – and limited to events in Thailand. Chang Noi is creating yet another royal tradition!!
28 david w // Apr 2, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Chang Noi’s mistaken title for the conference was the title of one of the presentations. In this case, it was the presentation by Paul Handley. Of course, the monarchy was discussed in the other discussions on constitutions and the violence in the south as well.
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.