The Low Down on the Show Down of the year?

[bao-bao]

...as perhaps I should have myself, it's pretty clear that "stef" merely made an error in his post, but what he was replying to was catawampuscat's post before it that was referring to Thailand, and not Europe, as I read it. Nevertheless, I didn't see Smiles reply as mean-spirited and he does usually seem to be one of the more level-headed ones on this board. Where I admit my mistake was in saying "right as usual," as I don't know him well enough to make the generalization.

Let me be clear, please... my post here is NOT a comeback to LMTU's post. It's just an idea. Please read on:

This board is a wealth of good information. It's disturbing, though - especially for a relatively new member such as myself - to see such venomous in-fighting. May I make a suggestion? When there are private comments to be delivered, try to use the little Private Message button in the posting window and then have at the person you're unhappy with. A clever bit of poking fun at a member in public is one thing; just spewing on the board isn't very entertaining OR informative and doesn't really belong here.

I did get a kick out of your comment "a creature named Bao-Bao appeared to compliment Smiles on "being correct, as usual, Smiles." ( Where have we seem this vaudeville act before ?)" though... I'm not QUITE old enough to have been in vaudeville, but there are mornings I feel somewhat less than human!

Have a better day tomorrow, LMTU. I've enjoyed many of your posts here.

bao-bao

[lonelywombat]

LMTU in a cut and paste from Hedda's blog.

A little indigestion ...

, by mocking one of Gaythailand's young moderators for wondering why Pattaya was so empty during July and August, which he referred to as "high season."

Read in context, it was clear to anyone reading that post, anyone without an agenda, that the moderator meant "high season" in Europe, not Thailand. That's exactly what he said in a follow-up post when he realized that his reference to "high season" was being misinterpreted.

That didn't stop poor Smiles from using the post as an excuse to rush to take a swipe at the Gaythailand board. Mind you, [b]he didn't post his comments as a reply on Gaythailand, where they logically belonged. No, Smirks felt compelled to start his own thread on his Sawatdee board, where he undoubtedly imagined he could twist his knife and keyboard with greater freedom to let all the phoney names he uses to post without detection.[/b]

When challenged, Smiles tried to excuse his posting on Sawatdee by saying it had more posters than Gaythailand, ignoring the fact that 80% of those posters are ghosts names living on in his hard drive. For a brief moment, however,it looked as if Smiles' ploy might generate some heat, if not light, between the two boards.

My guess is that's exactly what Smiles wanted, to try and generate more interest and traffic in a board that is thirsting for new blood. There's nothing better to generate interest in a failingboard than to pick a food fight with a neighboring board, especially when you have 60 names in reserve to throw into the fray.

End of the cut and paste of Hedda's comments

Interesting that Hedda did not post a reply to Smiles on Sawatdee where they logically belonged, but to the terrible blog
to try and generate more interest and traffic in a board that is thirsting for new blood. It looks like Hedda is trying to generate some heat between SF and GT . Remember there is nothing better to generate interest in a failing board(blog)
than to pick a food fight with a neighboring board when you have all those anon names in reserve to throw into the fray

[Smiles]

My my ... Smiles taking a drubbing again. And I didn't even do anything.

Just think of me as the 21st century Jesus Christ ... taking the heat for the collective 'Sinners of Sawatdee'. :cheers:




You're welcome, and cheers, my people ...

A lot of very, very selective editing of the "facts" in order to produce a particular spin. Where have I seen such tactics before? Were they perhaps used by Dubya, Rummy and the rest of the gang to justify the war in Iraq?

[PeterUK]

I always thought Hedda was a much better political analyst than literary critic and this latest rant proves it. I presume that when he says one poster uses 60 names and controls 80 percent of the board he doesn't really believe such twaddle himself and just does it to needle. What a filing system Smiles would need if it were true and he certainly wouldn't have time for a boring old paid job. But the literary argument is the most compelling evidence against such claims. Each of us, when we write, do so in our own unique way, using favourite words, favourite ways of phrasing things and so on, much of this at a subconscious level. It can be hard, even for a professional writer, to disguise his normal 'voice' convincingly - some stylistic quirk or other will usually give him away. For one person to have done it on the scale mentioned above - well, it's laughable. The only poster I'm aware of at SF who really seems to make a career out of multiple handles is the Australian midget and he is too dim to begin to disguise his normal style (or even to use the occasional upper-case first letter in his handles). Smiles actually has a very distinctive writing style. I consider myself to have a good ear for such things and no other poster at SF has ever put me remotely in mind of him. I've never known Hedda to produce a shred of proof for his claims; it's all just the malice of the once-favoured one in exile. I'm pleased to see that bao-bao, the latest poster to be fingered by Hedda (for no more than the crime of agreeing with something Smiles wrote!), is able to take it all in such good part; I'm not sure that I would be able to. I don't think that Smiles has helped his own cause by continually responding to Hedda's jibes - a dignified silence would have been much better. But I have no doubt in my mind as to who the real villain of the piece is. The famed intelligence and wit mean nothing to me by themselves. Recently Hedda saw much irony in the fact that Bush should defend the right to life of unborn innocents at home while pursuing a Middle East policy which takes innocent life. I also see a certain irony in a commentator who advocates high ethical standards in the political domain while showing a complete lack of them in his personal dealings with others.

I don't want to tread on any toes, but under the topic 'Bushit' I was the one who made the analogy between stem cell research and the killing of innocents in the middle east (unless of course Hedda stole my thunder and printed the same elsewhere - in which case ignore me!).

I also see a certain irony in a commentator who advocates high ethical standards in the political domain while showing a complete lack of them in his personal dealings with others.

Is this a polite way of suggesting hypocrisy?

[PeterUK]

Is this a polite way of suggesting hypocrisy?

Yes.

If you go down to the Bog today you're sure of a big surprise. The offending item has disappeared. And a new item (about bird flu in Thailand) has been posted three times. It fills up the page, but it wasn't worth cutting and pasting from the Bangkok Post with minor edits to make it appear an original thought (never one of Miss Marple's strengths). And there's a long and very poorly written "justification" for the Continuing Obsession, the Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name