(I have to say that I haven’t seen the book yet, and a quick search of bookshops didn’t turn a copy up for me).

Grasshopper#62: “especially when both arguing are right” – I can’t see that recommending a course of action that would, at the very least, alienate Thais and almost certainly deny the possibility of future visas, is right.

I think Republican has hinted that he’s a teacher in some institution here. If so, do you think he’s preaching what he advocates to his students & colleagues? Of course not. He’d be lynched.

“Really? I had absolutely no idea. Thank you for enlightening me about the unknown deeds of these brave souls, among whose number no doubt you count yourself. The poor Thai people have so much to be grateful to you for.” (stamps foot & exits stage left, colliding with a barbarous peon, who rudely awakens from Bogarting while Bangkok burns, & leads the trolls, lemming-like, bearing the Great Republican Leader, chanting “unto, unto, unto!” to Anus-a-worry Democ, where GRL strikes a heroic pose and turns to stone, as the trolls self-immolate. The rest is silence.)

I apologize to Nick and Andrew for my post, and I will no longer post about my reply to Snarly whatever he replies back.

1st. http://bkkeats.blogspot.com has a combination of restaurants, I can’t imagine a ‘farang’ ever going into Jae Nui in Samut Sakorn; they don’t even have an english menu there. Add ‘My Choice’ on Sukhumvit 36 to that, in the times I’ve been there, I’ve never seen even 1 farang there.

2nd. Yes, some of the restaurants are expensive as hell. In reference to your comment about small amounts of food, you’ll see that the restaurant was completely badgered and the comment was even made that the Bkkeater will never return. But the idea is to cover both expensive and cheap eats.

3rd. Coming soon will be about the best Phad Thai in Bkk, “Thip Samai” which is near Wat Phukhawthong “the Golden Mountain Temple”, Sorn Thong a seafood on Rama IV just past the Esso gas station between Sukhumvit 24 and 26, and “Sri Fah” in Thonglor. None of these eats are for Farang, and their price ranges are a lot more moderate.

Now, to be *slightly* topical, I’ll close by continuing my advice to Michael in reference to Republican’s post 63. There is a rule on some American political blogs: “DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS”

I’ve got to say, your constant whining about “abuse” and “insults” annoys the hell out of me. There has been no “insulting personal criticism” on this thread, only criticism of your argument. If you can’t distinguish the two then you have a sad understanding of academic debate. There has also been no “abuse” or “insults”, unless you call criticism of an argument “abuse” or an “insult”. As for “name-calling”, well you’ve indulged in it yourself, so complaining about it here is like the pot calling the kettle black.

So I take these false accusations to be a disingenuous attempt to close down the argument, as you tried to do twice before (#1 and #38), because you are incapable of defending what you write.

What really surprises me is that you insist that your work is inspired by political objectives (“…in the real world of politics…” etc.) but you seemed shocked when someone actually wants to debate you. Isn’t this what politics is all about? If you can’t put up with vigorous debate then perhaps you ought to change your field from politics to ornithology or crochet. Again, your position in regard to debate is all too similar to the CNS and the royalists: their disdain for the free, messy, cut-and-thrust nature of debate that is characteristic of democratic politics.

Lastly, in response:

1. “…Republican may also be surprised to learn that people take on very difficult issues in Thailand using their own name, and bravely address questions of injustice while using the symbolism of the monarchy to advance their cause. …”

Really? I had absolutely no idea. Thank you for enlightening me about the unknown deeds of these brave souls, among whose number no doubt you count yourself. The poor Thai people have so much to be grateful to you for.

2. “…The idea that human rights activists are hypocrites unless they also attack the monarchy sums up the sterile-abstract radicalism of the position…”

How is it “radical” to ask that the same standards for human rights be applied to all? If two sides violate human rights and you only attack the one, then this is by definition hypocritical. I can’t see how you can argue otherwise.

3. “…While the exchange may have been ‘tiresome’ for Republican, I think it has been useful.…”

No, no; I said it was your sarcasm I found tiresome, not the exchanges (your reading comprehension is poor in places). I agree they have been useful, in revealing your true position. What a pity you are cutting them short. I was waiting to hear you explain on what evidence you base your claim that “…[the king] would be happy to be subject to equal treatment in matters of law…”

As Dickie Simpkins says, social reality conflicts with purity — so my idea is that Somsak and Republican’s social reality here seems to be both determined to be the alpha, or silverback and promote their purity unto us all! Andrew and Nicholas don’t seem to get involved with these ‘I’m not wrong’ opinionated debates because from my perspective, as seen here, they become savage — especially when both arguing are right… and that maybe Michael with his well thought out responses might want to consider this. The irony is simply that I can see I am a barbarous peon on here, so I thought you could relate to this if you saw it too.

re. yr comments on Somsak & Republican: I can agree with you on Republican, whose terminally boring & obsessively repetitive posts, in which he seems absolutely dedicated to demolishing (as if he could!) people like Thongchai & Michael , who write extremely well-reasoned & informative stuff, & valuable too, whether one agrees with everything they say or not, take up so much space.

As far as Ajarn Somsak is concerned, I don’t see him as having a “condescending & know it all tone.” I think all his hyperactive postings in that recent period were triggered off by a reaction to Samak’s comments on CNN & Al jazeera, & the consequent discussion. As he said, he was amazed at the interest – he didn’t think anyone cared. His demand that farang academics, & Michael in particular, should condemn the royals was unrealistic and impractical, & Michael dealt with it in a reasonable manner, even though Somsak was unwilling to see that. He was somewhat ‘off the rails.’ Well, I can understand that, given the circumstances, although I don’t agree with his targeting of Michael. And I don’t think it would be a good idea for him to target anyone here, in the way he has been doing it. I think the whole episode is rather sad.

The bottom line of that particular issue is that, in a situation where hardly anyone in a population of about 65million seems to genuinely give a damn about Tula 6 & 14 ( not to mention all the other massacres), and those who do are commonly regarded as dangerously subversive, perhaps there is other more important work to be done. Governments, rulers, & laws (& their application!) change as a result of societal change, IMHO. They change because they become unacceptable.

BTW, I’m wearing black for 100 days. HMK is connected with an institution I work for. (I won’t get into my frustrations with it, which have nothing to do with the royal connexion.) I also work for 2 projects (1 for 4 yrs) which were under the patronage of Phra Pinang, as a volunteer. Both are really well-run & socially constructive, not least because about 50 Thai people are donating time & ‘hands-on’ skills to them, and sincerely & passionately espousing their aims. The ‘black’ thing hasn’t been discussed – a waste of time, really. So, my view is ‘when in Rome…’

I must say I like Dickie Simpkins’ remarks on purity & hopeless purists, and his affirmation of the value of Michael’s work – but, as for his advice to go to Bkk Eats, I dunno about that. Maybe he was joking. I took a look at the site – awful! All the restaurants are very expensive, the food is either farang or farang versions of Thai, and the photos show hideously stingey servings. I think I’ll have to start my own Snarlyfood.com site!

Also, I used ‘unto’ in that last sentence in a slightly biblical way without realising. Perhaps I have been influenced too much by Somsak and Republican. Next thing they will have me rolling sticks and preaching my perspective unto all who I can corner!!!

Please explain “us peons” – is this some kind of obscure irony?

The other academics who are accountable unto this blog don’t seem to get involved with us peons — maybe there is a reason for this?