"What a bunch of arseholes ...."

I have been appalled by the selfish posts by people who want to protect their own anon yet want to expose others personal medical problems/progress. Lois Lane scoops.

About two years ago JB had the same personal attack even down to claiming he could not afford treatment . Before that Allan from, was in Pattaygay website.

On this thread we have people who should know better, ringing the hospital and posting what I would have thought was confidential information, just to boost their own egos.

What a bunch of arseholes you are. if the cap fits wear it.

You both know who we are talking about.

We all know the thread referred to. What would you prefer, LW - that incorrect information is posted here and left uncorrected?

Or would you prefer that the only source of information is that gathered in one of Pattayaland's bars by those here, a version of which may be passed on to those abroad who are genuinely interested and concerned?

It is nothing to do with egos (at least on my part); had it been I would hardly have posted the source of the most recent information as Tim and Tom, and given the number of the hospital so that this, and the information I gave, could be confirmed. What I posted was simply to correct the information already given on this forum, no more and no less. I am relieved to see that LAPOS has chosen to copy Tim and Tom's e-mails on this forum, presumably with their approval.

There has been no "personal attack" made on the subject of that thread - far from it, he clearly has the respect of all who have met him.

My anonymity, which you have some sort of fixation about, is totally irrelevant.

You have previously posted "Gone fishing, either show the guts to come out and say who you are, your real name or fuck off", to which I replied "If you, or anyone else, feels so strongly about this then please take the time to cite any post of mine concerning JB (in context, and with a date for reference) that is not substantiated. Should you be able to find just one such post I will cease posting about him or anything connected with him forthwith. Similarly, if you can find just one post where I have made a derogatory comment about the subject, I will also cease posting anything concerning him. Should you be able to produce both, then I will cease posting on this board completely, under this or any other name. If you are unable to do so then I can only suggest you follow your own advice.."

I copied this to you previously by PM when you PM'd me about it on 12 October last year, as you apparently could not recollect making such a post - after that, and until now, you wisely made no mention of this subject.

As far as I am concerned, JB is a closed book - I have never made any allegations concerning any unpaid bills, of his or anyone else, neither do I have any idea who Allan is nor have I ever referred to him.

I have explained my reasons for my anonymity at length before and there is little point in repeating myself. Some posters know my background and those whom I have invited to my house following their PMs know exactly who I am - it is no more important or relevant than who you are - about which, I could care less.


Haud ignota loquor. Hoc est verum et nihili nisi verum.


"Sometimes people do get hurt when the truth comes out, but as a society,
we're usually better off when it happens. ... If you're telling the truth, you have nothing
to apologize for." -- Lois Lane

Aah ..... condemned to the Global Forum. How consistently inconsistent that this thread was transferred there, but not the post leading to it which has been left in situ. I will wait (without baited breath) to see if Lonely Wombat condemns the posts from LAPOS, from the same source but giving full detail, with similar vigour - if not, it would seem that argumentum ad hominem (directing an argument against someone's character rather than the subject at hand) is the order of the day, as usual.

"Baited breath". What an ignoramus you are GF. http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_boar ... es/16.html (http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/5/messages/16.html)

"Baited breath". What an ignoramus you are GF. http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_boar ... es/16.html (http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/5/messages/16.html)

...but his Latin is a wonder to behold.

Quite possibly, but not in this case. Even if I were I would be in good company, as detailed in your reference:

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/bated-breath.html:

Which is it - bated or baited? We have baited hooks and baited traps, but bated - what's that? Bated doesn't even seem to be a real word, where else do you hear it? Having said that 'baited breath' makes little sense either. How can breath be baited? With worms?
There seems little guidance in contemporary texts. Search in Google and you'll find about the same number of hits for 'baited breath' as 'bated breath' - around 100,000 each. In one of the best selling books of all time - Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, (whose publisher could surely afford the services of a proof-reader), we have:
"The whole common room listened with baited breath."

Before you give a reference as an authority next time maybe you should check that your reference comes from the source itself rather than from an unknown poster on a bulletin board.

Vah! Denuone Latine loquebar VVV? Me ineptum. Interdum modo elabitur

[mj_87-old]

I would have thougt that any close friends of Micks would either be in contact with Tim or Tom directly or with the hospital by visiting.

A perfectly reasonable assumption, sanook, but although I have been a friend of Mick's for around 20 years, since the days of Rainbow bar which I doubt most posters will recall, "I am not a bar person", am barely acquainted with either Tim or Tom and I had already been told that hospital visits were not allowed.

I was not in direct receipt of Tim and Tom's e-mails but was informed of the details by third parties, which I posted here in general terms but not in detail for the reasons given above. If you think that course of action was wrong, then please explain why - and if rational, rather than simply abusive, I will respect your view, as I would have respected anyone posting it or sending it to me by PM.


My only remaining observation, in the event of such an event occuring again, is that I can see no reason for anyone's surname to be posted here under these circumstances and this could be readily incorporated into the Posting Guidelines.[/quote]
------------------------------------------------------------
OK - I am really confused here GF. From reading your original posts on the subject of the person in the hospital, it appeared that you had detailed information about his condition and the procedures that were being performed. It appears now that you are saying that the information that you had was gossip picked up third hand. Why would you post detailed information about someone when that information is third hand. It is gossip if you do not have specific information from the doctors or from the family or friends who are at the hospital.

...sigh...
Maybe I should start with the Thailand forum and work my way down and then, maybe, I'll be able to follow what's going on. :scratch:
I usually start the other way, with the "Posting" forum and work my way up.

But then, as I'm only logging in on the weekend, it all looks like a tempest in a teapot.

OK - I am really confused here GF. It appears now that you are saying that the information that you had was gossip picked up third hand.

No, what I am saying is that I was told exactly what was in the e-mails concerning Mick sent initially only to their friends by Tim and Tom, which I was not in a position to be sent at the time as I do not know them, and I posted that information here omitting some specific details which I considered unnecessary for everyone to know; when I realised that the detail I initially posted concerning the hospital was incorrect I contacted the hospital and spoke personally to the nurse resposible for his particular ICU. I would not call this "gossip".


Why would you post detailed information about someone when that information is third hand.

Because the details already posted were totally incorrect and no-one else was correcting them. I think I have already answered this (twice).

[mj_87-old]

GF If you did not have first hand knowledge of the goings on in the hospital and you were getting your information second hand from a third party there was no way for you to know if the information that you posted was correct.
You said you were getting your information from a third party - am I wrong on that point?
It seems very strange that you would post under those circustances.
I guess we have different definitions of gossip.
Mine would be when I do not have access to the primary information source and are passing along information that is one or two steps removed from the source.

GF If you did not have first hand knowledge of the goings on in the hospital and you were getting your information second hand from a third party there was no way for you to know if the information that you posted was correct.

Agreed, as far as it goes - unless I was physically in the ICU and operating theatre at the time, all the time, I could not be absolutely, 100% sure that what I posted was correct.


You said you were getting your information from a third party - am I wrong on that point?

No, you are quite correct. The information was, however, verbatim from e-mails from those with Mick (Tim and Tom) and also initially from phone calls made by them to the "third parties" (although the details in those calls given to me was admittedly not recorded or from a transcript). The information on the hospital was incorrect as it was not contained in the initial e-mails or phone calls. This is the third time I have made this point.


It seems very strange that you would post under those circustances. I guess we have different definitions of gossip. Mine would be when I do not have access to the primary information source and are passing along information that is one or two steps removed from the source.

I guess we do. As I have responded in what I hope is a reasonable and open manner to your posts maybe, unlike others, you would have the courtesy to give a straight answer to the questions I posed on this subject in Posting Guidelines (http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/forum/revealing-personal-medical-information-t1789.html), which would seem a more appropriate place to continue this discussion without duplicating it here, where I wrote:

On 11 June I wrote "Once mention was made of Mick's condition it is better to post correct information, or at least information that is genuinely believed to be correct and is corroborated by different sources, than to post nothing, leaving those abroad totally in the dark and those here reliant on bar room gossip." I still hold to that view - if you disagree, then please explain why.

On 14 June I wrote "tony 7 (and mj_87), I understand what you say and I agree with your sentiments, but the "situation" is already public knowledge and deleting or editing this thread cannot change that." I see no reason to change that view, and you have done nothing to change it (neither have those who say I was posting to massage my ego).

On 15 June in a connected thread following Lonely Wombat's describing me as "an arsehole" I asked him What would you prefer, LW - that incorrect information is posted here and left uncorrected? Or would you prefer that the only source of information is that gathered in one of Pattayaland's bars by those here, a version of which may be passed on to those abroad who are genuinely interested and concerned?"[/size] [size=150]"If that is the option you prefer, again, please explain why.

It is not a question of what should have happened under ideal, hypothetical circumstances; the question I am asking is which of the two available options (and there were only two that I can envisage, under the circumstances) you would have chosen in my position and why.


(and if you want to continue what is so far a reasonable discussion please avoid calling me a "whitless fuck" as you did in another post (http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/forum/civil-partnership-uk-t17692.html#p178068) where I gave correct [u]first hand[/] information on registering a UK Civil Partnership in South Vietnam - and I do mean South Vietnam!)

[mj_87-old]

GF - The path you should have chosen was not to post at all as you did not have first hand information.
You were relying on second hand information whichh is gossip.

and I do mean South Vietnam!)

No, I don't think you do.

What you mean is either southern Vietnam or south Vietnam (with the word "south" in all lower case letters).

"South Vietnam", with the word "south" capitalized, has not existed for thirty-some years.

GF - The path you should have chosen was not to post at all as you did not have first hand information.
You were relying on second hand information whichh is gossip.Do any of us have first hand information about very much at all? I, for example, simply ignore what posters write about themselves as I have no way of verifying whether it is true or not. Claims of university degrees or success in business are used quite often to back up otherwise questionable assertions or opinions. I don't know as a fact that any particular poster lives in Pattaya or Bangkok just because they say they do. People say all sorts of things about themselves. I've just got off the phone after having a conversation with a friend in America who claims he's being blackmailed. However I know he's a fantasist and a drama queen whose daily life sounds like a novel and quite possibly is. Do I believe him? Do I need to decide that point?

GF - The path you should have chosen was not to post at all as you did not have first hand information.
You were relying on second hand information whichh is gossip.

You have not said specifically what you would have done under the same circumstances, but as I read it your answer is that unless you were with Mick throughout yourself, and personally in the operating theatre and the ICU to see what was happening (the only way you could have first hand information) you would not have posted at all - " leaving those abroad totally in the dark and those here reliant on bar room gossip" and "incorrect information ... posted here", which you knew to be wrong, "left uncorrected".

I should point out that the information currently being posted is also being posted by a third party, on information given by a second party (as mine was) - presumably you think this should also not be posted?

You could not have been faulted, as you have gone for the simple expedient of doing nothing wrong by doing nothing at all. That is not my style, nor has it ever been one which I have much respect for, so we will simply have to agree to disagree.

[quote="Gone Fishing":3nmfnt99]

and I do mean South Vietnam!)

No, I don't think you do.

What you mean is either southern Vietnam or south Vietnam (with the word "south" in all lower case letters).

"South Vietnam", with the word "south" capitalized, has not existed for thirty-some years.[/quote:3nmfnt99]

No, I definitely do not mean "either southern Vietnam or south Vietnam (with the word "south" in all lower case letters)".

That would refer to a general geographical area or region rather than an administrative region with specific boundaries which, as concerns the areas for which the British Embassy in Hanoi and the British Consulate in HCMC have administrative responsibility for British Consular affairs, is what I referred to.

The terms "northern Vietnam" and "southern Vietnam" are used by the British Foreign Office/Embassy/Consulate in the interests of political expediency rather than geographical accuracy (as the staff in the Consulate informed me).

Technically, however, the term "South Vietnam" is incorrect and it should be "the former South Vietnam" (although this is no more politically acceptable).

I have no objection to being corrected, as long as the individual doing so is correct; when they are not their intervention is less than pointless.

Sounds like you did mean "south Vietnam" then, and that I was correct.

Sounds like you did mean "south Vietnam" then, and that I was correct.

"Sounds like" (where have I heard that before??) you are incapable of understanding basic English, among your other inadequacies. Nothing new there, I suppose.

One of my many faults is that I still often refer to Burma instead of Myanmar, Rangoon instead of Yangon, Peking instead of Beijing, Bombay instead of Mumbai, etc - I find that more people understand what I am talking about that way. Unfortunately all too often there is some pedant (I think that is what I mean) who is all too eager to correct this and to confuse the issue, even if they are incorrect themselves.

People may understand what you are talking about, but that does not make your use of the language correct.

I'm sure you would not refer to the area around Berlin as "East Germany". "Eastern Germany" or "east Germany", perhaps.

Same goes for Vietnam.

"South Vietnam" is completely wrong. "south Vietnam" is correct.

Is it that difficult for you to admit you are mistaken?

No, I definitely do not mean "either southern Vietnam or south Vietnam (with the word "south" in all lower case letters)".

That would refer to a general geographical area or region rather than an administrative region with specific boundaries which, as concerns the areas for which the British Embassy in Hanoi and the British Consulate in HCMC have administrative responsibility for British Consular affairs, is what I referred to.

The terms "northern Vietnam" and "southern Vietnam" are used by the British Foreign Office/Embassy/Consulate in the interests of political expediency rather than geographical accuracy (as the staff in the Consulate informed me).

Technically, however, the term "South Vietnam" is incorrect and it should be "the former South Vietnam" (although this is no more politically acceptable).



So is it your position that Her Majesty's F&CO is the arbiter on the naming of all places? Are you asserting that the British currently secretly govern Vietnam? What pompous idiocy.

I was recently emphatically told by a young gentleman from modern Vietnam that there is only one Vietnam. I'm prepared to take his word for it over that of the F&CO.