PM

[Whistler]

Alternative truths 55.

[Whistler]

Does seem that mod has gotten fed up with some on here for breaking forum rules. As they seem unable to respond, I will not comment on my views of those named apart from DM, cannot see any reason for John to be pinged, just a very naughty boy with a penchant to stir the pot with his own brand of humour.

[Khun Paul]

Does seem that mod has gotten fed up with some on here for breaking forum rules. As they seem unable to respond, I will not comment on my views of those named apart from DM, cannot see any reason for John to be pinged, just a very naughty boy with a penchant to stir the pot with his own brand of humour.

[Redacted] Even if humour is involved it appears los on many who subscribe to the latest craze of complaining about everything that does not fit into their agenda.

Like Thai politics really, now it has been revealed that the number of Foreign citizens CAN NOT be included in MP allocations, therefore although we are here and contribute a lot to the National GDP we ae superfluous to decision making . Having said hat some 19 yeas ago was introduced to the then local MP, who was amazed I LIVED IN Udon as she thought most Foreigners lived in places with lots of bars and girls .

[Udon Map]

Like Thai politics really, now it has been revealed that the number of Foreign citizens CAN NOT be included in MP allocations, therefore although we are here and contribute a lot to the National GDP we ae superfluous to decision making.

Isn't it really just a question of degree? We can't vote, either. In the U.S., resident non-citizens cannot vote, but are counted for the purpose of the census and allocation of seats in Congress, federal aid, etc., which seems to be what you're advocating.

But doesn't that then create its own problems? Suppose you have a district where half of the people are non-resident aliens. Then the votes of citizens in that district count twice as much as votes in the neighboring district where there are no foreigners.

[Whistler]

Does seem that mod has gotten fed up with some on here for breaking forum rules. As they seem unable to respond, I will not comment on my views of those named apart from DM, cannot see any reason for John to be pinged, just a very naughty boy with a penchant to stir the pot with his own brand of humour.

[Redacted]

Even if humour is involved it appears los on many who subscribe to the latest craze of complaining about everything that does not fit into their agenda.

Hypocrisy on steroids, read back a few days CP and the mods posted that it was YOU complaining with increasingly acerbic PM's. Now you complain about the complainers, the chief of whom is yourself. Hysterical!

[Laan Yaa Mo]

Let's make this simple, Whistler. A Conservative, Liberal, Socialist, Communist and Marxist are likely to interpret/analyse the same facts differently. In the same way, religious 'facts' will be viewed differently by Jews, Christians, Muslims and people of other faiths. It doesn't make any of them wrong as long as they can back up their claims. In another instance, 'Kwan Yum' (Kuan Yin in Mandarin) is worshipped around the world by Chinese communities as the Goddess of Mercy. This is a fact. However, few of her devotees realise that in India it was a male bodhisattva who was transformed by the Chinese over the years to a female deity in China (perhaps in the Sung Dynasty). Should we order those followers of Kwan Yum to give up their faith because of their ignorance? I don't think so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanyin

[Whistler]

Tolerance is a belief that I hold very high. Holding on to patently wrong ideas is not interpretation, is is simply foolish.

The bahai faith has an interesting approach to truths, there are dome that are constant, the supreme truth for them is monotheism. They practice that if another belief is proven to wrong, it must be discarded. In bahai Galileo would not have been threatened with torture, death and excommunication.

I remain tolerant of views, but not of blatant untruths. KP's spouts a lot of these, so I called him out, end of story.

[jackspratt]

There's a difference between calling out what you consider to be untruths, and virtually ordering people not to post those.

Or at least, I would think so.

And I suspect that is the point being made by Uncle Tilo.

[Khun Paul]

pos what I believe is reasonable truth from my perspective , I may be wrong but others view them as incorrect and in some cases blatant lies , often reading some posts I do wonder about others. But I rarely call anyone out as has been said people view thigs differently depending on upbringing, culture, religion etc, that list is endless !

When i feel slighted and rightly so react, that reaction it appears is not acceptable by those that run the FORUM as name calling is not allowed but you can call someone a liar that is acceptable .

So unless psoters wish to be at war with each other let us recognise that we are all different , have our own viewpoints and ideas on how things ar and accept that often some subjects ae are bound to causer someone to be upset `. This is he real world.

My current situation is tenable and do I care if some old chap is upset, not one jot as often they care even less about me .

[Udon Map]

Tolerance is a belief that I hold very high.

Me, too. But that raises an interesting philosophical question: If I want to be tolerant, must I tolerate the intolerance of others?

[Whistler]

pos what I believe is reasonable truth from my perspective , I may be wrong but others view them as incorrect and in some cases blatant lies , often reading some posts I do wonder about others. But I rarely call anyone out as has been said people view thigs differently depending on upbringing, culture, religion etc, that list is endless !

When i feel slighted and rightly so react, that reaction it appears is not acceptable by those that run the FORUM as name calling is not allowed but you can call someone a liar that is acceptable .

So unless psoters wish to be at war with each other let us recognise that we are all different , have our own viewpoints and ideas on how things ar and accept that often some subjects ae are bound to causer someone to be upset `. This is he real world.

My current situation is tenable and do I care if some old chap is upset, not one jot as often they care even less about me .

Let's take this head on.

When I posted several weeks ago that Davos was not government funded, you posted BS. This is not an opinion, or a point of view, it is a fact. Davos is entirely funded by its members and not funded by governments, so your statement is an outright lie. You may wish to categorise this as name calling, but a lie, is a lie is a lie and you have had ample opportunities to say you were mistaken etc.

A differing point of view is just fine, but a blatant denial of a verifiable fact is simply lying.

[Khun Paul]

pos what I believe is reasonable truth from my perspective , I may be wrong but others view them as incorrect and in some cases blatant lies , often reading some posts I do wonder about others. But I rarely call anyone out as has been said people view thigs differently depending on upbringing, culture, religion etc, that list is endless !

When i feel slighted and rightly so react, that reaction it appears is not acceptable by those that run the FORUM as name calling is not allowed but you can call someone a liar that is acceptable .

So unless psoters wish to be at war with each other let us recognise that we are all different , have our own viewpoints and ideas on how things ar and accept that often some subjects ae are bound to causer someone to be upset `. This is he real world.

My current situation is tenable and do I care if some old chap is upset, not one jot as often they care even less about me .

Let's take this head on.

When I posted several weeks ago that Davos was not government funded, you posted BS. This is not an opinion, or a point of view, it is a fact. Davos is entirely funded by its members and not funded by governments, so your statement is an outright lie. You may wish to categorise this as name calling, but a lie, is a lie is a lie and you have had ample opportunities to say you were mistaken etc.

A differing point of view is just fine, but a blatant denial of a verifiable fact is simply lying.

Still using the permission granted by the owner, okay to call someone a liar. So xplain to me oh learned onne, who pays for the Government Ministers attending DAVOS, do the attendees pay out of their own pockets or is some generous minded profit making entitiy pay for them.

When you have the PROVABLE facts that zero Government money from ANY Government is NOT involved I will agree with your accusation and apologise until then stop calling me a liar . If you go with facts then PROVE them or be guiet 11111111111

[BillaRickaDickay]

According to the WEF, governments are involved, two and two together, a certain amount of funding to hold these meetings must be provided by said governments, if not all.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/12/ ... d-to-know/

2nd paragraph for a short read.

[Udon Map]

pos what I believe is reasonable truth from my perspective . . . .

Not sure what you meant by "pos" however, moving ahead....

There is no "reasonable truth from my perspective" unless you're a Trump sycophant. They often speak about "alternative facts". Truth is an objective reality.

"... reasonable truth from my perspective ..." consists of your beliefs, which may or may not coincide with factual reality.

So xplain to me oh learned onne, who pays for the Government Ministers attending DAVOS, do the attendees pay out of their own pockets or is some generous minded profit making entitiy pay for them.

That's an easy one. Governments undoubtedly pay the travel expenses of the various ministers and leaders who attend, but that's all. They do not pay to attend the Forum. From the WEF website:

Non-business participants in the Annual Meeting - such as leaders from civil society, the arts, young global leaders, media leaders, heads of state and ministers from over 70 countries - do not pay to participate, and some communities such as academic faculty receive travel and accommodation funding in order to facilitate their attendance.

[Drunk Monkey]

pos what I believe is reasonable truth from my perspective . . . .

This falls in to the new term liked by the wokies .... my truth .. so KP what you believe as being truth from another person is actually their truth and your truth but may not be the truth ..

There is only one truth .. nt a variation of the truth to suit a persons state of mind in a certain circumstance.

DM

[Whistler]

I will answer both billa and kp with this register of lobby groups funding the world economic forum. It is funded by approximately 1000 members,not a single government is included in this list. It is 100% funded by non government bodies.

https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/

Billaricky, the forum was set up with the specific purpose of bringing industry and governments together to discuss issues on the agenda. Government attendees a re not charged any fees. Government involvement does not equate to government funding.

I quote in full from Quora.com as some on here may have trouble accessing that site

Long answer: According to the website of the World Economic Forum people from the private sector pay to participate in Davos and people from civil society do not pay to participate. As it states:

“Membership and partnership fees range from CHF60,000 to CHF600,000 depending on the level of engagement. Most types of membership include the opportunity to participate in the Annual Meeting for the CEO of the company, although Davos participation incurs a fee over and above membership or partnership fees.

The Forum also works with government agencies in order to achieve project or initiative objectives, and, in certain instances, these agencies fund those activities through the Forum.

Non-business participants in the Annual Meeting - such as leaders from civil society, the arts, young global leaders, media leaders, heads of state and ministers from over 70 countries - do not pay to participate, and some communities such as academic faculty receive travel and accommodation funding in order to facilitate their attendance.”

This clearly states that government attendees do not contribute fees. Government attendees have their expenses subsidised!

SUMMARY: governments do not fund Davos, these references are unambiguous.

[Whistler]

Note, issues raised at davos sometimes lead to research projects that may be government funded, but those projects are just that, independent projects, not funded or controlled by Davos

[Khun Paul]

Really
The Forum also works with government agencies in order to achieve project or initiative objectives, and, in certain instances, these agencies fund those activities through the Forum.

Hence I was correct there IS Government money used in DAVOS one way or the other.

YOU have poved me right thankyou, i will accept an apology in blood !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[BillaRickaDickay]

It's a bit like the House of Lords in the UK then, no Salaries but Expenses paid for Attending, I'm talking Gov officials.
We all know what a farce that is.
No doubt to many attending, financing the whole show, their intentions are good, but as I have said before, we have the technology to discuss these things over the Net.

[Whistler]

It's a bit like the House of Lords in the UK then, no Salaries but Expenses paid for Attending, I'm talking Gov officials.
We all know what a farce that is.
No doubt to many attending, financing the whole show, their intentions are good, but as I have said before, we have the technology to discuss these things over the Net.

There's a tendency to hang onto a position even when that position becomes increasingly untenable, sorry to say this, but you appear to be in that mode.

- there were 2700 delegates attending multiple streams. That is much too big for any of the technologies like Zoom, GOTO Meeting, Skype etc. If you can find a single instance of a major forum of similar size and complexity that has used these technologies, I will withdraw this statement. I use these technologies every week and in my career have attended dozens of events like the WEF. I have also been on industry boards that organised largish events, not as big as this one, but would not do do with technologies designed for smaller audiences. As an example, GOTo meeting from Citrix has a limit of 50 participatents. Zoom would not cut it.

- much of the forum was networking, you cannot do this with video conferences effectively.