LTO wrote: Odd that. I haven't even expressed an opinion about whether they are entitled to/deserving of help from the embassy, and have said almost nothing about the singlet twins themselves.

It's that omission and your rheteoric in your other posts that leads one into thinking your position is that of not deserving.

I have simply not been supportive of the attacks on the embassy, or of the veracity of their story, and have questioned whether the bleeding heart approach to "helping" them actually amounts to help (e.g. I don't think it's a good idea to give a jonesing druggy a hand full of cash on the promise he'll do the right thing with it, if that's what the situation was at the embassy.)

There, you just did it again. handful of cash? It has been posted many times that the ticket is bought and paid for by the embassy, and its not the budget flights they are after. Your not daft so I interpret it as maliciousness. He's still in dire condition in hospital you know.

More interestingly, when I make a substantive point such as the post above regarding "knowledge" and what that justifies, it is not met with reason or counter-argument, but ad hominem ("you've changed") and pedantics ("telling usage of the moniker 'singlet twins' which betrays your own interests.") This resort to fallacy and rhetoric indicates to me the weakness of the bleeding heart position, that perhaps it can't be supported by reason. (Just as an aside, I picked up the term 'Singlets twins' from their first and primary supporter Charles Dashwood in his front page article on 440. It's not my creation. It's in the first paragraph.)

That's been addressed in another post.

To repeat, just in brief, the little bit of opinion I have expressed about the worthiness of these two to receive the help of strangers: in the allocation of time and money I or any of us have for charity and people in need in Cambodia, I would be giving it to street kids and hungry mothers and child support organizations long before I'd give it to these two.

There you go again. No one is asking you to give any money to anyone, just a bit of time and consideration for someone seriously unwell in hospital. The 15 pound + interest on the loans received pays for it. Again you know that, your not daft, so why?

That is not to detract from the decision of CD or SCC to put their time and money into the singlets. What pulls at their heart strings, what they see as worthy and where they want to put their resources is completely up to them. But for me, in light of the fact that resources are limited, and this is Cambodia where real need doesn't mean hitting a harsh end to your holiday, there are about 9,000,000 people in line ahead of them.[/quote]

What pulls at my heart strings is someone left alone to die in a hospital for want of compassion. I also think it is a scandal in many ways, embassy and forum opinions being two. I can try and change the former, never change the latter.
Nothing to do with Cambodian citizens. You sound like you have spent a fair bit of cash in that direction, made a bit too no doubt. Care to give us the general results of all that money and good work? not exactly left you with a caring personality has it. You don't even know what the 2 destitute true story is do you?

General Mackevili wrote:

juansweetpotato wrote:
I didn't read it like that at all.

To be fair, I didn't hardly read it, as it looked like nonsense from the start.

It just seemed like a story that became LESS verified every time someone looked into it.

I personally think everyone on that thread got the wool pulled over their eyes, especially Scobie.

Are we really supposed to believe that a "journalist" and "film maker" that was so involved with the story was never able to get a second picture of the 2 gentlemen? PLEEEEEAAAAAAAAASE!

I also think that using this particular "story" that can't even be verified one iota to condemn the British Embassy is beyond ridiculous, to say the least.

Strange as it seems General, and at times I have wondered myself, I have met the characters involved and been in contact with Martin's parents, and others that know Nick etc it's all real. Charles' original story he says was one of the embassy angle. Everyone else did the usual knew jerk dig in with the 'background' stuff. The thread got emotional at times lol. My angle was always the embassy one because I believe it is a very valuable service for travelers. I notice we haven't had too many real life stories on situations it's possible to get into where you would be cool in the eyes of the public in getting a destitute embassy loan.
The embassy should send one of its staff over to be shot, maybe OD and Playboy could do the honors together.

StroppyChops wrote:Is there a gap in the narrative here somewhere? Please don't refer me to links OTOF - but who's Nick, and where on CEO is the backstory?

Difficult one Mr Chops. Are you trying to force me to write 10 pages? I could post Darwood's, original KT piece if that would help?

StroppyChops wrote:

MekongMouse wrote:

StroppyChops wrote:Is there a gap in the narrative here somewhere? Please don't refer me to links OTOF - but who's Nick, and where on CEO is the backstory?

I didnt know either, but here's what I gather from skimming the last few pages of the 440 thread: two Brits have lost the plot and are struggling. SCC is in contact with their families and the embassy to get them help. I believe scoobz has been in contact too. Nick, one of the Brits, was hit with a truck and is on life support at calmette. The other has gone home (flight paid for by friends). The debate seems to focus on whether an embassy is obligated to repatriate in situations like this. Nick also has loads of unpaid hospital bills, so there's that element too.

Thank you. Do we know if Nick's conscious?

Yes, he is conscious and awaiting permission from next of kin for a critical operation. He's not on life support anymore.

Good to hear he's doing better.

wait, if he's conscious can't he make his own consent?

juansweetpotato wrote: ... The embassy should send one of its staff over to be shot, maybe OD and Playboy could do the honors together.

While there are actually a couple of people at the British Embassy I would not mind taking a shot at, could I delegate the task to one of my staff, I have a cracking hangover and I think that the loud bang might hurt my delicate head to much this morning.

Playboy wrote:While there are actually a couple of people at the British Embassy I would not mind taking a shot at, could I delegate the task to one of my staff,

To have 'staff', does one not have to work? (sorry to mention the 4-letter word)

Hey, having staff is work

Playboy wrote:

juansweetpotato wrote: ... The embassy should send one of its staff over to be shot, maybe OD and Playboy could do the honors together.

While there are actually a couple of people at the British Embassy I would not mind taking a shot at, could I delegate the task to one of my staff, I have a cracking hangover and I think that the loud bang might hurt my delicate head to much this morning.

No Pm's or private communication whatsoever apart from one quick one, followed by an immediate 24hr banning for telling Violet to go press the sissy button (filter me). No PM requests to restrict posting. No PM requests to tone it down a bit. No declaration of intent privately handed over. In short, a complete lack of discretionary procedure

How do you answer to these charges Playboy (and Logos)?