Yes Oscar did get away with murder. I'm convinced of that. The question most prominent in my mind is; why did his wife lock the bathroom door? I'm guessing they were having a very serious argument and she sought refuge in the bathroom. I've been married three times ad cannot remember any of my ladies having to lock themselves in the bathroom (well only when the two of us were in there :)

Posted by seht1912 on September 13, 2014 12:01

The decision and basis for it was very clear.
The prosecutor did not present evidence to the court to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant committed murder.
The verdict took almost two days to read, she thoroughly went through each section of evidence for each separate crime and detailed what weight was given to every witness and piece of evidence, why one version was preferred to another.

The result is exactly how a legal system should function and a credit to the judge for her ability to filter out all the stories and innuendo that surrounded the case from the actual facts.

Posted by Manowar on September 13, 2014 12:24

@Manowar: Totally agree.
@seht1923: Hope you never sit on a jury.

Posted by Smithy on September 13, 2014 12:41

One thing is what actually hapenned, another one is what can be proved in the court, basing on permissible and credible evidence, and yes, there is could be a gap - and reconstruction of reality based on latter, can differ, in times, rather significantly with a facts that took a place in reality..

During a trial not "objective truth" is established, but a kind of "legal truth" that is constrained by allowed evidence and rules of procedure. Criminal trials specific rules on evidence and rather high standard of proof, in general more often makes legal truth lighter with culpable facts in comparison with an objective truth, than otherwise. Sometimes courts compensate it with relatively heavy sentences for relatively light proved crimes, when they feel that an objective truth is quite far away from an established legal truth - but such twist in turn would abuse of rule of law , however it can be regarded fair, as a rule of law doesn't provide 100% fairness, however targeting it.

Pi stories trial is of no exception, and , although there were there were hints and evidence that support hypothesis of premeditated murder, a court resolved they do not stand a standard of criminal trial. Let see whether an appeal court will have different opinion on that. Yes, a factor decreasing such probability is well-grounded current judgement.

In civil case a legal truth can depart even further from an objective truth as a process is of competion between parties, who can have rather different ability to gather and present evidence, no active role in collecting evidence and relatively loose standard of justification of verdict.
Obviously, trials on administrative matters - private persons vs. state on administrative orders and alike - coming closest to an objective truth in establishing a legal truth, as they are bound by inquisitorial maxim of searching (objective) truth - a duty of court to identify and to gather relevant evidence, so courts have an active role,that is in general is not restricted in methods and scope - very different both to civil case and criminal cases trials under any legal system.

Posted by Sue on September 13, 2014 14:21

Perhaps it's the Gin and Tonic speaking but I have had only one so that cannot be the reason. I have never read such a long winded, meaningless and utterly nonsensical diatribe. I am of course referring to the pearls of putrid dung that falls from the lips of SUE, much like what falls from the tail end of my polo pony! Perhaps in her head it made sense...but not to anyone else and adds nothing. Same same as they say. I think what is a much more serious and relevant conversation would be concerning the erection (yes, titter titter) of the Dolphin prison nearing completion, in time for the high season. This disgraceful, distasteful and utterly repugnant abomination has no place in the 21st century, let alone Phuket. Isn't it strange how there are now MORE dolphins arriving to this prison. And what most people fail to realise is where these dolphins come from. TAIJI, Japan, where they are herded, slaughtered and stolen for the entertainment of chinless uneducated tourists who have no idea of the trauma involved. If you don't know about TAIJI by now then watch The Cove and educate yourself. And make no mistake, locals will not benefit from this disgrace. Only the sub human slavers behind it. Voice your opposition and put an end to this before it starts. The beaches have been cleaned up, time to clean up this mess...

Posted by Lord Melchett on September 13, 2014 16:29

Once again Sue, you have found a way to make a simple process sound complicated.

The case in question dealt with the following facts, a person was deceased and another person admitted to causing the death.

The courts role was simple, to establish whether the death was intentional, unintentional or somewhere in between and was this action considered reasonable and legal.

Nobody, except the defendant knows what happened. The police had the initial role to determine whether the sequence of events matches the available evidence or whether evidence suggests an alternative theory.

Forget the objective and legal truth, this is just your interpretation from Google.

There is evidence by way of motive, history, forensics which may suggest a timeline of events.

The rule of law determines what is fair.

Courts do not compensate with heavy penalties for lightly proved crimes. The suggestion you make is a that a decision is assumed although evidence is unavailable to confirm the crime occurred or not strong enough for a conviction. Your statement that this would occur in trial only suggests that you consider either the judge is derelict in duty, or if by jury, they are bias in not considering only the evidence presented to them.

"A court resolved they do not stand a standard of criminal trial". There were no hints of evidence of a hypothesis of murder, there was only pieces of evidence that when assessed by relevance and accuracy was determined by the judge to conclude the most likely event that occurred.

"Yes, a factor decreasing such probability is well-grounded current judgement." What are you trying to say as this makes no sense, in English anyway.

An "Appeal Court..." You listen to the media too much. There will not be an appeal. The judge presented one of the most accurate and considered determinations possible. In her judgement she spent almost 2 hours considering the timeline of events between 3.05am and 3.25am covering the entire period of witness testimony until medics and police arrived on site.
Every single witnesses testimony was matched to telephone conversations, security footage, recalculated to match time errors on clocks from which they referenced and in the end there can be no doubt her conclusion as to the sequence of events was correct, despite the many variation contained in witness statements.

This was the most important part of the trial. The remainder is events leading up to the event and the determination gave the same level of consideration to not only this evidence but to the law that apply.

An appeal can then only proceed due to an error of law. Add to this that he has been found guilty of culpable homicide and will be sentenced to a reasonable period of gaol so what would be the purpose. They cannot introduce new evidence and even if possible by error of law, is it in the public interest to do so.

A criminal trial operates on a " beyond reasonable doubt principle" a civil court operates on a lessor burden of proof such as. " on the balance of probabilities". There is no "loose standard of justification of verdict", the courts role to determine the action in finality on the evidence presented.

Administrative matters if conducted by a tribunal are less formal but as for your statement that

"A duty of court to identify and to gather relevant evidence, so courts have an active role,that is in general is not restricted in methods and scope - very different both to civil case and criminal cases trials under any legal system."

Again is just wrong. A court does not gather evidence. The main difference in these cases are that witnesses belong and have a duty to the tribunal and not to the party in the proceedings, they are less formal and you may be required to seek leave of the he court to be legally represented.

Posted by Manowar on September 13, 2014 17:10

@Manowar

First, you may be mixed up "petty offence", "petty crimes" area, that, yes, sometimes are referred as administrative offences, or "administrative matters",
with an area of administrative law, a public law that govern relationships between a private person , whether an individual or an entity, and a state, and excludes all areas of criminal justice, incl.petty offences, when a state/municipal agency issue an administrative act(order) or performs a real act,that has an impact on legal or factual situation of that person. And I clearly mentioned what I mean.

Second, you obviously have a first hearing that courts may have not only right to actively collect evidence , but even duty to do it - so called "inquisitorial maxim" - that is applied only on administrative law area to balance out disparity between a private person and a state.
It is adopted in such form in most of civil law countries, incl. the Kingdom, and many common law countries , like UK, US, Canada have moved toward it and UK very close to it.

But , yes - you have valid excuse - did I correctly understood that you are originally from Australia?

Then quick look reveals, that
although Australia formally adopted long time ago for administrative tribunals inquisitorial principle ( Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 37:2,38:1)to collect evidence on its own initiative
in practice it was sabotaged by judicial bodies as they are not used to such principle that is very opposite to common law procedures in courts, and simply didn't used it:
"Australian tribunals were designed to operate in an inquisitorial manner by statute, yet courts and tribunals have been reluctant to set up, sanction or even promote alternative modes of process beyond those with which they are most familiar. "
http://goo.gl/CejqJs
Moreover , in AUS in administrative matters only legality of administrative acts is reviewed, not merits - unlike in most other countries.
And in most countries, unlike AUS, there are special administrative courts.

Let me cite a typical passage from the European laws on administrative procedure/judicial powers in this respect of inquisitional maxim:

"Objective Investigation Principle
In order to ascertain, within the limits of the claim, the true circumstances of the matter and to achieve the fair adjudication of an administrative matter, a court shall give participants in the administrative procedure instructions and recommendations, as well as on its own initiative collect evidence."

"Within the course of administrative proceedings, while performing its duties, a court shall itself (ex officio) objectively determine the circumstances of a matter and provide a legal assessment of these, adjudicating the matter within a reasonable time."

"Inquisitorial principle underlying investigation
The authority shall determine the facts of the case ex officio. It shall determine the type and scope of investigation and shall not be bound by the participants??? submissions and motions to receive evidence of the participants."

"The court shall investigate the facts ex officio; those concerned shall be consulted in doing so.
It shall not be bound by the pleadings and evidence offered by parties"

The latter two are from German laws.

FYI appropriate passage from the Kingdom law, that has been influenced on the matter at first by French law as well as other European laws on the same matter:

Act on Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure B.E. 2542 (1999) (55:3)

"In the trial and adjudication, the Administrative Court may examine and inquire into facts as is appropriate. For this purpose, the Administrative Court may hear oral evidence, documentary evidence or experts or evidence other than the evidence adduced by the parties, as is appropriate."

And Supreme Administrative Court even has a comprehensive explanation how this works here in Thailand on its website:

"The judge who is responsible for fact finding is the judge - rapporteur. He is one of the judges in the chamber for trial and adjudication of the case. T he judge - rapporteur has a broad power in fact finding as he may think fit although, in fact, the judge has to begin with facts and evidence submitted or presented to the Court by the parties. A wide variety of measures can be applied by the judge in order to acquire facts and evidence. Duty of the judge in fact finding is to acquire sufficient facts and evidence before the chamber in Courts start trials and adjudication. The judge - rapporteur shall perform his duties in the interest of both parties and shall give both parties opportunities to review and present an objection of the facts and evidence discovered by the judge, before being compiled a part of the proceedings of the case. Thus, lawyers are not exactly required in general administrative cases, but in certain administrative cases, there might be a need for lawyers where the case involved the payment of money or complicated administrative contracts."

In regard of what kind of truth is sought - and found - in courts, how it compares with what can be called "objective truth", and how quality of "truth" established by courts in civil , criminal or administrative proceeding differs, you may have no real understanding, however you tried a bit.
Law on procedure is just a set of man-made rules which are thought to bring a result of finding facts as close as possible to objective truth, but it is not often not a case , incl. because of the said limitations put on by criminal or civil case procedures. Procedure rules are supposed to provide fairness , but not absolute one - in adm.matters it is done by applying inquisitorial maxim.

As for Pistorous trial, whether appeal is allowed on merits or on a point of law, a higher court, would be able to review whether evidence in the case was not misinterpreted, assessed and evaluated - proper application of rules of evaluation evidence is a part of law.

And you should not boast about your better knowledge of your mothertongue English. I wonder how good your are with writing in foreign languages, obviously as good as understanding of inquisitorial maxim.

Posted by Sue on September 13, 2014 22:49

"Lord Melchett"

If you lack understanding of something, e.g. what a legal justification is, then you better than to become emotional, try to grasp an unknown concept. Many things may seem to you as lacking substance or strange , simply for a reason you don't understand them, especially when in altered state of mind.

As for dolphins in Chalong, once someone will demonstrate that standards there are below common standard, be it European one or other widely accepted one, I would happily join an opposition.
Other grounds do not appeal for me, in part, because they are not legally enforceable in Thailand in this situation and thus lacking any sense to spend any effort on it.

Posted by Sue on September 13, 2014 23:25

@Sue: Semper plumbeus, semper stolidus, semper ad nauseam! Is Latin easier for you to understand as you sure cannot write or understand plain English? Lord Melchett's description of your unintelligible rantings is classic: 'pearls of putrid dung that falls from the lips of SUE', so maybe you can understand why I'm unable to answer what I cannot digest.

Posted by Pete on September 14, 2014 07:36

Sue , fortunately for Lord Melchett, you are the third 'Bob' to have appeared in his lifetime. Whether you be Authur or Martha you do show the sign of being a descendant of Nursie

Posted by Manowar on September 14, 2014 09:26

Sue, take the correct dose of medication, buy a new keyboard with the letters in the correct position, stop annoying Gooogle and the only Latin phrase you need to remember is non compos mentis.

Posted by Manowar on September 14, 2014 10:35

Yuor Highness Lord Melchett

What u think about to push enter at your keyboard after 3-5 sentences?

People call it paragraph and it turns your collection of words into a readable text.

Posted by Georg The Viking on September 14, 2014 10:45

Aren't Sundays super? I especially enjoy reading the Phuketwan and the comments therein; today was no less enjoyable. How gratifying to see that Sue, or should I say Bob, has once again treated us all to yet more bewildering lienteric penmanship which always causes loud guffaws. I am afraid my dear, that it's not a case of being unable to understand the facts or legal systems in the case of Pistorious, just an inability to understand your scribbling. As that excellent fellow Mr Gump said "Stupid is as stupid does."
As to your assertion that you would support opposition to the Dolphin prison if it were shown to be 'below common standard, be it European or widely accepted one' is incredible. Considering that dolphins travel anywhere up to 100 miles a day, in close knit family groups, what exactly is a common standard? There is no substitution for being free to roam the oceans. These despicable exploiters of nature want to keep 8 dolphins and 2 fur seals in a tank that is smaller than an Olympic swimming pool. Contrary to what these people want you to know, there is now evidence that they are attempting to import 3 captive bred dolphins and 5 wild caught dolphins that have come from Taiji, along with the two Fur Seals. There are no other tanks that we know of at the site; instead they will all be crammed into one tank....all for the entertainment of people who just have no idea of the wider issues. And again, this is not for the benefit of tourism or locals but for the benefit of foreign investors who will get rich at the expense of these majestic and sentient mammals sentenced to a slow death. The foreign investors are exploiting Thailand for their own benefit and to the detriment of the reputation of Phuket. Just because something may be 'legal' does not make it right. Slavery used to be legal but enlightened people stood up to the legality of it and made a change. If you can't be bothered then that is your choice but for many others that is not the case, thankfully. Considering your viewpoint, I think that those opposed to this would be better served by you not participating in opposition. Your pearls of wisdom less musings would no doubt be counter productive. My dear, some friendly advice would be KISS when writing. Keep It Simple. Your attempts to sound clever really aren't working for you. Now time for a quick Chukka before afternoon Tiffin. Ta-Ta.

Posted by Lord Melchett on September 14, 2014 11:30

@ Georg the Viking.
My apologies old boy, I am using one of those new fangled iPads and haven't quiet got used to the interface.

I

Do

Apologise

And will

Keep your

Advice

In mind.

Toodlepip

Posted by Lord Melchett on September 14, 2014 11:35

"Lord Melchett"

Yes, Sundays are great : I already had my oysters and a lobster - not a fake one, Panulirus versicolor - a Painted Shrimp - locally commonly called "lobster" , but a real one of Homarus genus, and some other staff. It was steamed, not boiled in a sea water, that is the method of cooking a lobster I prefer, but a single alterantive - "grill" - do not appeal to my in regard of lobster at all, as I don't like grilled lobsters.
And as I don't drink alcohol in Thailand because I am feel absolutely fine and relaxed in tropical climate, so I went for my favorite fresh fruit, veggies and berry juice mixes and smoothies.

In regard of Chalong dolphinarium, my question was how you would get to a result of closing/prohibiting one?
From what you just said it follows that such prohibition not necessarily should be "legal".
Then I wonder what do you expect from authorities? For authorities to act on either just "public opinion" or some argument in favour of prohibition to attention of authorities, it still should be within a legal framework.
There is no legal ground for authorities just simply to take into account a public sentiment itself as it is and without looking into underlying arguments - this, if possible, can be done when taking zoning/planning decisions or similar, in other cases it would constitute not a rule of law, but a modified rule of mob.

And, yes, moral arguments, also are part of legal framework, and administrative authorities, of course, can - and should - take into account such arguments when making decisions.
However, such moral values in order to be taken into account should really exists in a society as whole , not within some narrow group, they should be regularly applied , and their existence should be proved.
Declaratory statements which are not reflected in real life or moral value of some small part of society, on whatever good grounds they are based, can not be used as a moral value argument for decision making by administrative authorities.

Argument that you brought - that
1) dolphins are suffering in captivity , thus should not be used fir entertainment purposes
2) dolphins are captured by cruel methods
3) dolphins unlike other animals, that are used for entertainment purposes, are much more intelligent and sensitive

1) and 2) surely are applicable to all other animals, that are used for entertainment performance purpose in Thailand.And it is worth to note that that there were no any sizeable opposition in Thailand society to such shows, they continue as they do, virtually nobody cares. Therefore it can be stablished that in Thai sociaty there is no maroal value against exploitation of animals for entertainment purposes - in a society as a whole; surely, some individuals and small group of people are of different opinion.

Therefore, same is applicable in part of 1) and 2) to dolphins - there is no established moral values against exploitation of animals in Thai society. Yes, there are declaratory values in that respect, that have not translated into action, or some narrow group opinion, that can not be qualified as a moral value of a whole society.
That being said, it is highly unlikely that 3) exception can be created for dolphins as more intelligent , as 1) and 2) are acutely lacking.

Otherwise, whether department that is responsible for CITE, or Fishery department, would always be able to halt import on moral grounds.

Since it is not a case, that authorities would be able to invoke moral values to ban import of dolphins for Chalong site, then only other, different arguments can be relied upon.
That is why I asked: does Chalong complies with European or other standards? If no, that can be probably applied alone directly as a mistreatment of animals, or as supportive argument on moral grounds.

Online petitions in this case - unlike like in criminal matters, where prosecutor has a discrete power to withdraw charges - will not lead to success, unless it has underlying valid legal grounds, on which authorities could act. Petition, picketing alone is not an argument that can be used as legal grounds fro authorities to act.

Did I understood correctly that already 3 are cleared for import, and 5 are underway?
If so, it just reflect that your efforts are being in a vain, instead of looking for a valid argument to get RESULT, indulging yourself by a virtual feeling of an important action, telling heartbreaking stories, but - in the end - doing nothing sensible to bring desired outcome.

Are you of that kind of people who start N projects in a time with a big fuss, but unable to lead any of it to a meaningful RESULT - except of course of collecting dung excrete by your pony - only ?

Posted by Sue on September 14, 2014 19:49

@Pete

Whatever swearings, in whatever language, and regardless of how energetically and loudly are proclaimed by you, it doesn't change the fact:

you brought no argument on merits on the topic, thus it means you simply had nothing to say on it, and your vocalisations is just stinky blAH-BLah-BLAAH.

When you a face contentious point, that is against your monologue, you distinctively react only in a very subjective way - by bringing anything , but not your own counter-argument on a topic, and instead spraying various assessment of counterparty etc looks like a pipe in WC is broken, and all the dung pour out freely ( may be you missed your medication on an occasion?), and you don't repair it...
And yes, that all what you said ,on a repeated basis, is falling under "argumentum ad hominem" - avoiding a substance of the topic, by exuding some kind of secret.

You had nothing to say on a matter of quality of UK consular services, besides that these are "services provided by the Consul in person" and that you never been to Pattaya, good benchmark for a logical thinking indeed!

Posted by Sue on September 14, 2014 19:52

Sue, Diarrhoea writing disorder-
One that suffers from feeling their writing is eminently significant, produces it in voluminous quantities and in unremarkable (often unsolicited) contexts to such an extent that reading it can result in toxicity for passive observers.

Posted by Manowar on September 15, 2014 05:56

@ Manowar

Very well considered definition, hilarious!

Posted by What is Sue's problem? on September 15, 2014 09:49

Unfortunately I cannot claim that one, it came directly from Dominus Googlus!

Posted by Manowar on September 15, 2014 11:00

I say chaps, could someone possibly post a synopsis of the essay composed by Sue? It really is the most dull and boring drivel I have ever seen, outside of the publication 'Caravaners Monthly."

I fear my dear Sue, that you may suffer from a serious malady that has stricken the synaptic pathways between thought and your digits that prompt you to launch into such rhetoric. Perhaps it may be a mild form of Literary Tourette's, in which case I apologise in advance..F**k, T*ts, W**k!!!

Or perhaps some half wit gave you a piece of his mind and you have held on to it?

Seriously though. That is not writing, it's typing.

Have a great Montag and we will let the home know that you're out and about again.

For those that see the denigrating affects a dolphin prison would have on the reputation of Phuket, please make your voices heard. Email the Fisheries Department, Governor and join the protest.

Unlike Sue would have you believe, social activism and pressure can work and has done so. Protecting dolphins, whales and Orcas is not socially exclusive nor is it a small movement and evidence is available to support that. The Baby Boomers were brought up on 'Flipper' but the Millennial Generation have been brought up on Free Willy and Blackfish and are more aware of the treatment of cetaceans and want an end to this. If you don't know what they do to capture and train dolphins then watch The Cove and Blackfish for Orcas to see just how barbaric it all is.

It really is not right and will have a frightful effect on the reputation of Phuket and Thailand. Thailand has the opportunity to show the world and Asia that such barbaric facilities have no place in this world anymore.

Tootle pip for now. Off to throw some horse manure at the Dolphin Prison (only joking).

Posted by Lord Melchett on September 15, 2014 16:11

@Lord Melchett:
Sorry old chum, but I can't help you one iota. It's either some idiotic joke or a truly demented person.
Frankly speaking I've given up with the 'man'??. Spent far too long trying to translate his posts into some form of coherent English, so like others have said, I don't even bother to read them anymore. He quite obviously has some masochistic tendencies from exposing himself to public ridicule with every post he writes. Odd sort of person both with gender and brain.

Posted by Pete on September 15, 2014 17:38

@Lord

I don't doubt the cause, I challenge the means. But if there are no effective means, then it is just an empty speech and wasted efforts if you think that a social activism itself alone can resolve a cause.
There should be a concrete result in mind as well as a tool how to achieve it.

In order that a particular social activism to be taken into consideration by authorities it should somehow fit into legal system. Administrative decisions can not be taken just because some group of people want it.

There is no established and proveable morale values of Thailand society as a whole in regard of ban on use of animals for entertainment purposes - as I described it above.
Opinion of a narrow group of activists doesn't not constitute moral values of a whole Thai society.
That means that a moral argument can not be used by authorities in a process of decision making.


Phuket is quite immune to reputational risks like this - there are so many other issues that one may expect to bring Phuket or Thailand reputation down, but they didn't.
There are more than 150 dolphinariums in the world , mostly in tourist destinations, covering most of best attended countries, and presence of dolphinariums hardly had any sizeable impact on number of visitors or reputation, why this should have impact on Phuket?
Yes, some people care, but it doesn't make a material effect.

You fool yourself - and others too - if you think that addressing wrong agency like the Governor , who doesn't have any legal authority over projects like this at all, will bring any result. At best, he can talk to project owners - and then you know what result will be.
Theoretically , social activism can bring changes in a law - for Thailand such outcome is out of question for a foreseeable future.

That why I said that the only workable solution could be addressing appropriate administrative authority in case if this dolphinarium is found to be below European or other standards - and you failed to realize it.

Opposite to a legal solution, there is of course always possible a mob rule solution, but I doubt that it will work in Thailand, especially under current circumstances.

To get to a result you should have a plan, but for the cause you do not have even a sketch of the plan, just Hoorah and BlahBlahBlah, that will not move you even an inch toward a result, except shaking a hot air.

Posted by Sue on September 16, 2014 06:04

@Manowar

You obviously missed too many classes on Arithmetics in school, that's why you appears now to be so shamelessly lying:

In respond to my post 13.09.2014. 14:21 that consisted of 2113 characters with spaces,
you, Mr.Brevity, has posted on 13.09.2014. at 17:10 a discharge of volume of 3773 characters with spaces.

that with a ratio 1.79:1 to my original post, 179% of it - and then when you're talking about Diarrhea writing disorder , you surely mean the problem that you do own?

And this one for sure is not your longest post.

In response to your post mentioned above on 13.09.2014. at 22:49 I put 6121 characters with spaces - and longer than your post I am responding to, since if you respond with a longer post to mne, wh Z?? can't - that is just by 62% more! - that is by 23% or almost one fourth shorter than your response's extension to my post!

So then your rightly taking issue of your Diarrhea writing disorder seriously, as it is a case indeed.

About unsolicited posts, you are a champion in this field without any doubts. Since Google knows everything, just try it to see it - then with this you will learn useful skills too.

Posted by Sue on September 16, 2014 06:07

@Pete

As I see, you obviously simply unable to present your argument when you are confronted with a one on which you disagree, as you apparently become so emotional, and then it ends there.

Your history of excreting, um, let's call it emotions, on this thread:

I said: on number of occasion UK consular services were reported to be of inferior quality
You said: consul isn't government; name the consul who did misdeeds
..go on with a challenge and name one consul who was/is inefficient, let alone negligent, and see where you end up...

I said: issue is about consular services by consulate/embassy staff, not by the consul; consulate/embassy is government agency;at least 2 incidents took a place in Pattaya, that were reported by many media
You said: S. blurts out some indecipherable scrawls
(BTW no single mistake in that particular post that you responded, as I typed it on PC, not on iPad, as usually; so you requested, I put a reference to Pattaya cases - and ..where we ended up.. - in your stinky slur, no any argument presented..)

I said: you responded with argumentum ad hominem (that is, avoiding putting an argument on the topic, but instead discussing me); directed your attention to the fact that I responded to your question to name UK embassy misdeeds; you should surely know about those Pattaya cases, as you read local press thoroughly
You said: you never been to Pattaya; my argument is imbecilic

I said: what the link is between visiting Pattaya and reading about news from Pattaya in media?; put reference to UAE cases where UK embassy obviously underperformed on many occasions; asked you why you are became so emotional when I presented a particular reference to Pattaya incidents?
You said: whatever you said is dull and stupid, always, you sure cannot write or understand plain English, unintelligible ranting, dung

I said: you brought only swearing, no argument on substance, means, you have nothing to say on matter?
You said: ridicule, odd person with gender and brain

And who is ranting here like hysterical m'am at market place?
:D
YOU.

Pete, I don't know what is your age, I assume that you are significantly older than me, however still there is a chance that you are younger, but your unsaturated emotions every time when you come across an argument that you don't agree, I see an image of a grandfather, whose facial skin changes a color to tomato-red, he sweats profoundly, hands becomes trebling because of agitation, and he rants in full voice Imbecilic! every time when something is going not like he planned (it doesn't exclude him to present a concise argument as a monologue, and even express an appreciation when someone upholds his argument without reservations, but anything else - NO-NO, NO GO ZONE - as then will follows a tomato-red face and ear-pearcing creak: Imbecilic! Always! And ever!).

May I ask, is your sex male, please? I am asking this because such emotional outbursts like yours, covering whole my personality thoroughly and in details, reminded me of my one short-term GF, who after 3rd rant that I was a reason of all her troubles in life, namely she wanted to buy a dress, but we left a shop too fast, so she didn't manage to make her decision; one nail on her hand was broken; when she was watching TV I missed her implied unsaid wish to bring her glass of white wine etc. - she got very fast behind a door, and had to wait there until I pack her staff and issue it to her on that side of the door.
Since then I had no such type of GF with such kind of psycho defects, there was nobody even close to such mis-personality.

You reminded me of her, sorry for that.

Please re-learn to put an argument, not an emotion in a contentious situation.

Posted by Sue on September 16, 2014 06:25

Sue, the difference is, I hope that what I type does contribute to the topic.
The problem for you Sue, is no matter what topic, you have the inability to maintain relevance as with your latter post, you have again proven.
Of course Lord Melchett is also correct in his clarification that you in fact have diarrhoea typing disorder and would appear to be getting worse.
English is a really simple language, there is usually a word or phrase to accurately present your ideas or thoughts.

Try to start by using small words and when you get better you can use the larger ones in the correct context. Maybe even try to draft your post first, or provide a summary so we know what the purpose is.

Sue, anybody can Google to find information for a subject they know nothing about but I must say no one can confuse a post on a subject like you.

The problem you have Sue, is that some of us may actually be qualified in the subjects being discussed on PW and your attempted retort based on google searches and misunderstanding what you read, is inaccurate, makes you appear foolish and provides an easy opportunity to riposte.

Your previous post suggesting your grounding in physics does not match the accuracy of your posts as there is no way that any one with a science background would provide such inaccurate, ill informed and misguided opinion, leaving themselves so open to ridicule.

You appear to have some knowledge of proportions, ratios and percentages but then again so has my 7 year old son.

Anyway, I do enjoy you posts and the effort you put in each night. When I open PW in the morning and see " posted by Sue" it immediately reminds me to take out the garbage.

Posted by Manowar on September 16, 2014 07:57

@sue

Your verbosity is exceeded only by your stupidity.

@manofwar, love your closing remarks "When I open PW in the morning and see " posted by Sue" it immediately reminds me to take out the garbage.' Never a truer word spoken and now I don't even bother scanning the diatribe.

Finally Sue, I would add that 'You've never been outspoken; no one has ever been able to.'

Posted by Lord Melchett on September 16, 2014 10:20

@Manowar

An ignoramus, is the one who is telling all this to me?

The guy who know only two things:
1. physics in part of electricity - I've given you already a credit on this;
2. in part a mother-tongue of English, 20th century version :
It is not only that you don't know a contemporary meaning of the word Europe, but you are as well unable to check for a meaning with 2013 Oxford Dictionary, to realize that the word Europe has nowadays also has an official meaning of "the European Union":
http://goo.gl/wBxLt1
And then you was telling me out of your pity incompetence that French Guiana, Reunion, Mayotte, Martinique, Guadeloupe, Saint-Martin, Madeira, Azores and Canary is. are not the territory of the EU?

You spewed BS of
"For your information Sydney has a 60 minute peak intensity rain fall, 100 year event at 230mm and having seen a Phuket rain event in action, I can safely assume the conservative figure of 100mm in 30 minutes."
and when I confronted you that there No Such Data at all even close to 230mm/60min are on record for NSW in Bureau of Meteorology of Australian Government data base, then you slicked off in the direction of Quensland and provided sone data from QLD - is Sydney is or was in QLD??

"Rain intensity is not based on yesterday's rainfall. It is based on long term analysis of expected intensity over what is called return frequency ( that is not how often you visit Phuket or your physo) referenced by such as 1 year, 2, 5, 10 or even 100 years. "
WHAT?? The rain intensity has to do with return frequency of catastrophic weather event??

"So returning back to the topic at hand, rain intensity has no relationship, to daily rainfall, seasonal or annual rain.
Intensity is the measure of quantity over time so simply, magnitude."
Rain intensity is a derivative function of an amount rainfall with respect to the time lapsed.
You obviously never learnt a calculus, Manowar :D
In practice it is calculated for a given rain occasion as an amount of rainfall divided by its duration, pls check BMAG data base, for once.

And then you claimed BS on BS - that you SAFELY (BS-wise) have estimated that there are regular rains in Phuket, on Patong, with an intensity 200mm/hr and duration of 30min, that assumedly brought ca.100mm of rainfall - and that THIS is a cause of Oatong floods,and no infrastructure will ever realistically cope with a such cataclysmus.

The biggest BS you said is that you actually never ever have seen a rain like 200mm/hr intensity,
and even more - accordingly you never been able to see a similar rain, recorded by your visual perception, in Phuket - Pigs Should Fly , Manowar, especially in the context you mentioned that such intensity rain and duration rain is a regular event on Patong :
surely, pigs should swim on Patong, but during any rain with an intensity more than 5mm/hr, because of simply profoundly inadequate infrastructure, not of regular unreversed cataclysmic event that you never saw in Sydney, but still compared you vision that you have got from your visit to Fantasy and Dreamland.

Manowar, Former mayor and Council should employ you as professional tale-teller, to justify Patong floods with inadvertent forces of nature, with which no human being is able to cope - as Man-of-tales.


Then you said:" A court does not gather evidence." - only in your imagination, and if it is not administrative court - welcome to the Kingdom with a civil-law and administrative court, ignorance of law of the land where you reside, see above.

"misunderstanding what you read, is inaccurate, makes you appear foolish and provides an easy opportunity to riposte." - this obviously describe you well.

It is simply a mindset of a person who used to job classified by ILO(ISCO-08) between Group 7 and Group 0: those people are always very confident that there is nothing beyond their horizon, and what they see, i.e. as much they are able to understand, it is

"I hope that what I type does contribute to the topic."
Well attended Fantasy and Dreamland, Man-of-tales, you learnt well of that, erh, "farangscwith overinflated ego" - you may surely be more accurate in a grammar of your mother-tongue, but that is your almost only knowledge, the rest is pure bluff and BS.

Posted by Sue on September 16, 2014 10:58

@Lord Melchett

You have missed, that so far only your mouth have been excreting a dung well, not mine - giving your vocabulary -probably because the only task you are able to bring to the end is to clean up a dung after your pony.

Hopefully "law enforcement" means being a cop or prison guard, where you had a supervisor who kick you well that you produce results on the job, not just dreaming. Hopefully you didn't take any independent position like judge or prosecutor, as it would be disgrace for a whole profession.

About dolphins you're unable to articulate how it will bring result - beside implied mob rule - very cop-like mindset - implying "somehow by force", without any idea how it will looks by law.
You given zero argument on the topic , either you have nothing say, and/or simply don't understand how administrative law works in civil law country.

I am professional complainer: when I go to restaurant I make a recording of taking an order - to avoid situation when waiter deliver a wrong order, and then ar
taking a video of a whole trip by taxi to avoid fixing a meter ; and beside such petty staff -
yes - I count one cop jailed for bribery attempt.
and one judge under criminal investigation - she still is not tried, but suspended from the job,
and another one dismissed from the office, but criminal charges against her dropped.
Not a joke.

Good and professional cops, of course, are respected people.

BTW, Montag wasn't as good as Sunday: it is increasingly difficult to find in Phuket good (1kg) Scylla seratta - Mud crab - Poo Kheaw, or even better Scylla olivacea - Poo Dam, for the best ever Thai dish - Poo Dam Phad Pong Karri - Crab stir-fried with yellow curry powder. The items found were just of 350-500 gr. , so they are simply not good for it.

Posted by Sue on September 16, 2014 11:00

@sue.."A professional complainer..."

Oh my, what a shocker. I am sure so many are surprised at that admission.

I've come across decomposed bodies that are less offensive than you are.

You are so boring that you can't even entertain a doubt.

Chin chin, G&T time...

Posted by Lord Melchett on September 16, 2014 11:47

Sue,
I'm sorry to tell you but experience cannot be found on Google. The same applies to intelligence and logic. No matter how hard you try, you just won't find it there. If it was that easy, we would all be as intelligent as the facade you attempt to present.

I initially considered you were just a typical crazy fool looking for recognition but you are really quite emotional, which appears to cause increased irrelevance in your attempt to impose your misinformation upon others.

Can we help you in any way?, English lessons, a chemist, a temporary power failure? Some may suggest permanent!

Posted by Manowar on September 16, 2014 11:53

I had to laugh " I am a professional complainer".

Some things are obvious and don' t require confirmation!

As for
"yes - I count one cop jailed for bribery attempt.
and one judge under criminal investigation - she still is not tried, but suspended from the job,
and another one dismissed from the office, but criminal charges against her dropped."

Sue, your spaceship is arriving ready to take you home. It's only a time warp or one overdose away.

Posted by Manowar on September 16, 2014 12:19

@Lord Mechelt

Regardless that you may well had been working in a criminal justice area, you obviously has not learn a lot about the law itself and how to work to results when you are left non-supervised - as you are unable to unfold nothing of a plan beyond the goal "of saving dolphins in Phuket". From repeating "I want it" the goal is not coming closer, whatever it is.
What differs me from you, that I am getting results with my complaints, but you just rend the air, doing nothing sensible at all for the cause - obviously rending the air in a virtual world with virtual means and virtual results for the cause of dolphins in breaks between cleaning your pony and learning iPad interface.

Most of my friends are similar, what you may call, hehe "boring nerds", even those Thais from Bangkok.

@Manowar

I don't drink alcohol in tropical climate as I'm fine w/o it, prefer fresh juices.
Moreover I don't take drugs, and I never did.
In addition, I go 6 times per week to gym.

Erh, how it is said, hope you see the one part of your body not only in mirror?

The cases that I cited are real, but last two took few years to develop, they are not from the Kingdom. If you don't know, removal from the position is extremely severe punishment for a judge.
The cop got 4 years, for real, after exhaustion of appeals,have to serve at least half.

Happy observing a rain of 100mm in 30 min in the land Fantasy and Dreamland!
(hint: when it's more than 5mm/hr rain in forecast on Patong(planet Earth), you can already half-step out of Dreamland to report to us on this regular weather event in Patong, that at the same time has 100years return frequency, and is a 100mm/30min rain , similar to that what you have observed in Sydney(state of Dreamland) - don't forget to share your wisdom with at least a part of Patong council: the most essential is the part that a humankind will never be able to fight such regular weather catastrophes at reasonable cost, so we just should accept weather and Patong floods as they are ,such lovely floods indeed, nature at its best)

Posted by Sue on September 16, 2014 15:32

As to what my role was within law enforcement and my capabilities, you have no idea and I feel no need to justify myself to a keyboard warrior troll so far detached from reality. You clearly feel that being able to copy and paste any rubbish you find on the internet in some way makes you clever, without having any real knowledge to draw upon to add anything useful to any conversation.

You truly are a most bothersome bore, who clearly did not cover comprehension at school, or how to write in a concise manner. Instead you just regurgitate any old tripe that comes into your head. Any thought you had must have had a lonely trip.

I would hazard a guess Madam, that they shot you through the stupid forest, and you didn't miss a tree.

Clearly my dear you are one of those people that believes they have the right to the last word. So please 'have at it' as they say.

I don't mind that you are writing so long as you don't mind that I'm not reading, along with probably 95% of readers.

You may want to do yourself a favour though, give your Trotters a rest as they must be red raw by now with your rabid essays.

Tootle pip, I am off to wallop some donkeys and for some reason I am in the mood for some fried pork.

Posted by Lord Melchett on September 16, 2014 17:34

Fellow readers, am I the only one who thinks it's hilarious that Sue, the ridiculous, verbose, self opinionated bore, actually records the conversation with the waiter!!!

I guess when one is such a deranged buffoon, friends are hard to come by; so playing back oneself placing an order is the closest she can come to a conversation over dinner.

I laughed so hard I cried - the ultimate blabbermouth!

Posted by What is Sue's problem? on September 16, 2014 18:48

When I saw Sue's post I couldn't stop laughing. One day I might even read it.
I've been racking my brain as to how you could make any worthwhile contribution and the only way was to place you and your like minded friends on the Russian- Ukraine border, immediately resulting in a 5 km self imposed exclusion zone.
I find it hard to believe that you were the quickest out of the all the sperm but this probably justifies why some animals eat their young.
Other than being inaccurate, incorrect, misinformed and mixd up, you are actually ok and in future I'll try to be nicer if you try to be smarter.
I'm slightly busy now, so if it's ok, I can just ignore you later.

Posted by Manowar on September 16, 2014 19:29

What is Sue's problem?
Simple: Megalomania, genius has limits but stupidity is terminal.

Posted by Pete on September 16, 2014 19:32

@Manowar

You played a role of "USEFUL IDIOT" well in politics of some Patong council members:

there is no place for efforts to improve of infrastructure to prevent floods, as these rains are of absolutely catastrophic scale, that mankind is unable to cope with in economic way.



you claimed you SAFELY estimated that in Patong on regular occasion there was a rain 100mm in 30 min (200mm/hr intensity ), as you recognized it basing on weather event in Sydney 230mm in 60min.

However, it was easily discovered in AU Meteorological bureue database in the whole NSW there were no single event with rain intensity more than 200mm/hr ever, bar 60 minutes long.

So you , first , have never seen 230mm in 60 min event as it never happened , and you never seen even smth.close to that as it virtually never happened too. Instead when confronted you slicked away , dodged a question and presented some data from QLD (has Sydney been moved?) from beginning of last century.

Then, basing on this fantasy of yours, you SAFELY claim you saw in Patong smth. similar .
Then you develop your brilliant fantasy to the extent that such rain in Patong are regular, made some calculations ,then deliberately added on top 60% to it, and alas! got figures that should show that it can't be economical to built infrastructure to cope with such catastrophic rain event in Patong.

You never saw 230mm in 60 min(230mm/hr) - still claim you did - on this basis you got a vision of 100mm in 30min(200mm/hr) in Patong:

"I never saw a FISH, but it is like a DOG; so FISH looks like a DOG"


Incompetent FOOL, making incompetent statement basing on FANTASY - then when the fool is put into a corner for a lack of argument on his side, then in defense he start to excrete and excude various kind of stinky smelly staff like SKUNK as he probably understands what the BS he said about Patong violent rains.

Aplogizing to my inferiority to you based on what your mother-tongue is, as this is virtually your only asset as you don't have any knowledge in anything else, I checked a dictionary, and yes, "useful idiots" is what you are here.

Patong council members should hire you as a Honorable Consultant, as they surely like your filthy ideas and intelligent calculations showing that it is beyond humankind abilities - as you put it - to fight such catastrophic rains in Patong, and give a nick , as usually Thais do, RainGaugeOnFeet for your ability to measure precisely on sight rain intensity without any equipment.

There are is wide use of Useful Idiots in the world nowadays, who sincerely believe in that crap what some politicians sell:
- Patong floods as an act of nature nobody would be able to cope with;
- fascist junta killing its citizens in Ukraine;
- the European Union should be deconstructed
and so on.

So if you lose your assignment with Patong council, I am sure you will visit Wonderland together with Alice, or take a pill and trip to Fantasy and Dreamland, your favorite destination.

Posted by Sue on September 17, 2014 00:31

@Lord Mechette

It doesn't change a state of things:

Troll is YOU : you was able only BlahBlahBlah on dolphins' issue, and NO SINGLE ARGUMENT when you've been confronted how you would achieve the ban, you only became too emotional and defensive, and still kept silence on substance of the matter.

Obviously, you came from precedent law country and have no idea how administrative law works in a civil law country, in the Kingdom, neither in terms of procedure nor in terms of substantial norms.

I put that that a case is hopeless and that it is not possible to shut a dolphinarium if only some fault is found in compliance with widespread standards. And there is no other ground for that ,incl. there is no valid moral argument , since reality on the ground is wide range of animals are used for entertainment shows in the Kingdom, but individuals' opinions or declaratory values play no role.

You appeared to be just a loud big-mouth unable to achieve any sensible outcome beside opening that mouth wide.

Homarus staff as you probably know are delivered to Phuket on Friday, you can eat them Friday-Sunday,or may be on Monday, but I don't really like them. Big mud crabs , although not cholesterol-free are the best. But it's hard to find one good in Phuket. Then Poo Nim Phad Prik Thai Dam - soft-shell crab fried with black pepper is absolutely great food too, even if taken as a main course, that was good enough for Dienstag.

@Pete

I see, Thai chilli pepper is felt twice - obviously it is again , the 2nd time there.
Since you radiates out just emotions, but no single rational argument, I conclude that Som Tam was indeed hot, as that chilli peeper diverts all your attention from a rational, from a head, to emotional, somewhere else, and creates an emotional momentum.

But in the end you still simply have nothing to say as an argument - just all the same discharge.

Posted by Sue on September 17, 2014 01:26

Sue, why would I argue with someone who has no knowledge on the subject whatsoever.
Physics, I don't think so, psychotics more like it.

Awoke this morning, opened PW, saw "posted by Sue", ignored the trash and now rubbish time. Beats buying a diary!

Posted by Manowar on September 17, 2014 07:28

Somehow these valid issues raised by Phuketwan have been subject to abuse by this self promoting bore. A significant percentage of Sue's diatribe has been to justify herself.Sue do us all a favour and submit to a lonely hearts site, alternatively I heard that there are condemned inmates on death row in the USA that crave attention,and I am sure that after corresponding with you they would rather expedite their sentances. We may just have found a purpose for your sad existance.

Posted by Waiter there is a Sue in my soup on September 17, 2014 13:36

Ed comment;This debate should be ended, please.
Why, oh why do you continue to post this long ongoing nonsense, not only from Sue, but all the respondents..? Surely you can just not publish this type of crap.It adds nothing of value, which is one of your requirements according to your oft quoted comment about such diatribe being sent to you.

Posted by DwayneD on September 17, 2014 15:34

@ Sue

My name is Freddie Tucker, I???m 31 years old and currently sitting in Maricopa County Jail in Phoenix Arizona. as you can imagine I???m don???t have too many things to do during my day but I???s do get one hour of recr where I???s allowed to use the Internet. My dream was always to go to Thailand, particularly Phuket, but that???s never going to happen now. So???s one day when I was doing my searches I happened upon this here great newspaper, Phuket wan. I likes it, it sure has some real good stories and I learns a lot bout Thailand. I really likes reading your comments, because when I go back to my cell, me and my cellies play a game, we call it let???s work out what Sues tried to say today.

Now little darling, may I call you little darling, I hope you won???t be offended by that Mam, it???s just we don???t get to write to many women, I haven???t seen one in real life the 12 years. anyway back to my story, we???s play this game every day, and I have to tell you little lady, we have never been able to work it out, you???s really does write some rubbish Mam! sometimes we???s thinks we are close but we really ain???t. one of my cellmates, Bubba, he???s real clever he did his schooling up to 13 years old, he reckons you should be president, because we never understand what he says too! Me I think yos u???ve something wrong with your brain, same I does but different, see I hear these voices, and they tell me to do things too, not the same as you, cause mine tell me bad things, I thinks yours tell you, you is clever, and you write good things, so you see, we are both deluded, only difference mines criminal. but to be fair Mam, we???s think yours should be criminal too. See you cause a lot of problems, for many folks here cause we fight about your rubbish most days.

So Mam, I was wondering is it okay if we write to you more through this paper, we had also like very much for you???s to give us a picture, we???s try to guess what you look like, I thinks you are kind of old may be a bit fat coz yous got those real big feet, not too pretty neither coz only ugly peoples show there feet, and if thats you???s best bit, wells thins don???t look so good, but hey little darling I don???t care, because you sure are better looking than Bubba. sorry I have to go now, Hatchet Thompson says it???s his turn, and he???s not a nice man.

Posted by Liking Sue on September 17, 2014 16:12

Whoever is behind this author you have talent.

Funny as hell.

But now I have to clean my keyboard.
Spat half of my afternoon tea over it...

Posted by Georg The Viking on September 17, 2014 16:59

Great introduction Freddie. It's sure to generate some heat in your direction!

Posted by Manowar on September 17, 2014 17:24

Dear Sue,
I am wrting you from the row here in Alabama, we are a small club as you may appreciate.You sure do give us girls something to smile about.We love that a woman is taking on all them menfolk.Word is your words of wisdom are going viral in the US prison community and we just wanna say you go girl.Maybe you could come to the united States of America on tour and visit us. We ain't eaxctly sure what you mean in your there articles but we loves you anyways.

Posted by Shonda Nicole on September 17, 2014 18:04

@SchondaNicole @LS

First, I hope you enjoy your mandatory daily strip and cavity searches, to make sure they are conducted properly, consult this video to provide your rights are not violated:
http://youtu.be/syncJdl7cQ8

Then, unfortunately you have not developed a right taste for exclusivity:
US Club is too big and is just as mass market as is McDonald, but the Europe is much more exclusive: the rate of incarceration in US is 5-10 times higher than in Europe.

Take a note that you need to upgrade to your English skills, as my nick is a Verb, a derivative of, not a Noun.

Posted by Sue on September 17, 2014 18:31

@Manowar

..at least it's good that you don't have intentions to send my friends to gas cameras.....

"the only way was to place you and your like minded friends on the Russian- Ukraine border, immediately resulting in a 5 km self imposed exclusion zone."

Posted by Sue on September 17, 2014 18:58

@ Sue

Hey little darling we is really happy you wrote back, wes think that @LS ????is us right? wes can have a real good game today, ????coz again we don????????t understand anything yous wrote. I????????s sure am sorry to say you don????????t understand much about prison life here in the south.Whats this here????thing yous talks about, ????????????mandatory daily strip and cavity searches???????? yous ????thinks me and Bubba up to something like that, no Mam, wes like women, and Bubba he really don????????t look so good with lipstick. The other things you say, theys make no sense to????me right now, but for sure we has a good game with them. so tomorrow I????????lls tell you what we thought. But to be????honest Mam, i????doubt we or anyone one else will understand.

We has this real good doctor here in county,????he????????s helping me????a lot with them voices in my head. i thinks he could help yous too, but yous not here, so i thinks you should look in Phuket. its hard at first to talk to them, coz peoples like me and you, he calls us????psychotics, wes not so good at listening, you know wes only like to hear ourselves, anyway little lady you try to find someone and see if it works.

Now little darling, what about this picture, mes and Bubba is really excited to see what yous look like, so don????????t be shy, send us one Mam. i????????s ????have to go now, but I sure hope we hear from you again soon.????Yours true Freddie.

Posted by Liking Sue on September 18, 2014 01:45

Sue,seek some help. Its very obvious to anyone reading that you are confused damaged personality, with an number apparent obsessions. Your continual obsession with personal validation is quite sad.
A few weeks ago you went off on a complete tangent on the case of the dolphins. You seemed more intent on your personal validations than saving these poor intelligent mamals from a cruel fate. Now I see you riducule prisoners on death row.
Whatever your history or problems there are people who can actually help you address them. I would suggest adopting a dog or a cat but with your apparent antipathy towards living creatures it may not save you.
If there is someone living with you please share his/her details as they must be as living saint and could teh rest of us divine tolerance.

Posted by Seek Some Help Sue on September 18, 2014 10:19