Knowledge or Knowledges

[mahwatT]

I have to change the topic of this posting to suit the content, since some members decided to use this posting to discuss about some points in English language.

The point of argument is whether the word "knowledges" is wrong because some thought that it was incorrect to add an "s" to the word "knowledge."

Here I have located more than 10 government and univesity websites from the English speaking countries which are using the word "knowledges" in their official web pages.

Now, Ian is still not conviced with the evidence which I have provided. Here again are those websites:


http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/atca/subjugated/cover.htm
http://www.iash.ed.ac.uk/vkconf.html
http://education.qld.gov.au/corporate/n ... dif1a.html
http://www.rmit.edu.au/globalism/globalknowledges
http://www.amazon.com/Knowledges-Counte ... 1565843835
http://www.iash.ed.ac.uk/vkconf.html
http://education.qld.gov.au/corporate/n ... dif1a.html
http://knowledgesexchange.wordpress.com/
http://www.ausdance.org.au/unspoken/index2.html
http://www.anthro.uci.edu/faculty_bios/ ... ledges.pdf
http://nml.ru.ac.za/blog/guy-berger/200 ... ation.html
http://portal.unesco.org/science/en/ev. ... N=201.html
http://www.holroyd.nsw.gov.au/doing_bus ... knowledges
http://www.geog.ucl.ac.uk/admissions-an ... knowledges
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-176203623.html
http://as.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle ... 62481.html

[Ink]

"....The Abhisit administration has only come to power in Thailand following a period of naked manipulation of Thai politics by cynical political elites, including the leadership of Abhisit's own 'Democrat' Party. The coruts have clearly been used in a highly political fashion to dismantle the democratically elected government by forcing ministers, including Prime Minister Samak, to resign, to create a lethal confrontation with Cambodia over Preah Vihear temple for purely domestic political reasons, and to disband the People's Power Party, the party of the legitimately elected government.

The 'Democrats' came to power only after threats of another military coup and months of violence on the streets of Bangkok by opponents of the PPP government, the so-called 'People's Alliance for Democracy', which actively campaigned for the suspension of democracy, e.g., by returning to a non-elected senate, a non-elected prime minister, by removing universal suffrage, etc. PAD members openly bore arms on the streets and shot several people. One of the leaders of the PAD, which attacked and captured Bangkok's main international airport, is now Abhisit's foreign minister. Finally, the 'Democrats' came to power only with the support of a PPP splinter group led by Chidchob Newin, one of Thailand's most notoriously corrupt political godfathers.

Since attaining power, the Abhisit government has clamped down on political opponents by charging them with lese majeste, which carries a jail term of 15 years. Australian author Harry Nicolaides was sentenced under this law for writing a book that sold only seven copies which allegedly insulted the //////. Professor Giles Ungpakorn has had to flee Thailand in order to escape persecution for his critical book on the 2006 coup d'etat, and is now resident in Oxford. Hundreds of other political prisoners are languishing in prison. Just this morning I have received news that the offices of Prachatai, one of Thailand's few remaining critical news websites, has been raided by the police and its coordinator arrested under the 'Computer and IT Act' which allows the government to silence subversive websites. Besides all that, the government has also treated Rohingya refugees from Burma with remarkable brutality, as you have probably seen recently on the news, with soldiers abusing the refugees before towing their vessels out to sea, stealing their supplies and cutting them adrift with no means of propulsion. This has drawn condemnation from the UN and various human rights groups...."
[From Lee Jones' e-mail as published by The Nation]

Hello MahwatT,
Not really sure what you were referring to that Giles did since you didn't go into details. But would the above portion of the letter by a researcher on International Relations of Oxford ressemble or echo something or some statements Giles might have uttered that you see as having brought so much shame to his family? BTW, I particularly like this part...

"If it were one of those illiterate and uninformed rural folks that behaved the way Giles did, apparently under the influences from Thaksin Shinnawatra, then, I would not have been surprised at all."

Can't say enough about how your statement is representative of the classic traditional power base's mentality and attitude towards the rural poor that has been a major factor for decades that brought us to where we are today.

[SARDINES]

Re: How A Crooked Bankrupt Media Tycoon Can Stupify Some of the Population

Actually, I think if the topic were directed towards Sondhi Lim, I think it would be an even more interesting topic.

SARDINES

[mahwatT]

I have just added a link to the You Tube recording of Abhisit's speech in which Giles had an unsuccessful challenge to Abhisit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-fsOdpVFsw

[Ian]

Again Piset displays his ignorance of English, Abhasit was asked what were the charges, he replied that he did not know the details although he had read the book. Seems to me if the offences of Giles were so blatant, anyone could put a finger on the charges against Giles. So Abhasit is less intelligent it seems than the people accusing Giles.
However, apart from that it was not a challenge it was a question from the floor. You do not challenge a man with a microphone, he can simply talk you down as Abhasit clearly did.
Piset, you are constantly stupified by your own self perceived brilliance and masterful rhetoric, you are truly amazing

[mahwatT]

Again Piset displays his ignorance of English, Abhasit was asked what were the charges, he replied that he did not know the details although he had read the book. Seems to me if the offences of Giles were so blatant, anyone could put a finger on the charges against Giles. So Abhasit is less intelligent it seems than the people accusing Giles.
However, apart from that it was not a challenge it was a question from the floor. You do not challenge a man with a microphone, he can simply talk you down as Abhasit clearly did.
Piset, you are constantly stupified by your own self perceived brilliance and masterful rhetoric, you are truly amazing

Ian:

Fortunately, you did not invent English language, thus, possess no rights as you attempt to proclaim in defining thw semantics of some of the English words.

When you put a pointed question to a speaker, ask any learned person on the street to see whether the use of the word "challenge" is appropriate.

Ian:

Have you run out of better ways to speak for Thaksin and his pets?

[Ian]

Piset, as an Englishman I have more rights to my language than a self imposed Thai exile lurking in Shangmai

[mahwatT]

Piset, as an Englishman I have more rights to my language than a self imposed Thai exile lurking in Shangmai

Ian:

Who gave you that "right?"

PPP voters?

A challenge is a challenge, such as I am challenging your "authoritativeness" in English semantic. You were born in England and to the English citizen's family. I accept that. However, I do not think you have any more credential to back up your authoritativeness in English semantic than anyone who have know the word "challenge" for ages. Now, you are challenged.

[Ian]

Piset, as an Englishman I have more rights to my language than a self imposed Thai exile lurking in Shangmai

Ian:

Who gave you that "right?"

PPP voters?

A challenge is a challenge, such as I am challenging your "authoritativeness" in English semantic. You were born in England and to the English citizen's family. I accept that. However, I do not think you have any more credential to back up your authoritativeness in English semantic than anyone who have know the word "challenge" for ages. Now, you are challenged.

Ah Piset you foolish fellow, yet again you display your ignorance, even though I have explained this to others like you on the Nation weblog. Now pay close attention
Unlike many languages such as French, the English language has no officially formulated structure, the French language for example is defined by the "French Academy" (I give it the English name to save you having to translate the French).
There are "approved" spellings, meanings and grammatical structures in English but they are neither binding nor enforceable. It is this very looseness that gives English its versatility.
Now moving on, a German speaks German, an Italian speaks Italian and a Thai speaks Thai.
By extention of this simple concept an Englishman speaks English, but as previously explained, as English has no official structure, I as an Englishman can claim to speak English, you as a Thai can never claim to speak English, At best you can claim to speak a subset of English which was once taught to you (I fear none to well) at some school.
Thus I have total authority to claim to speak correct English, simply because I am English. The most another Englishman could accuse me of is using none approved English. Fortunately in such a case English people do not castigate minority opinions. Just for the record Shakespeare introduced over 2000 new words into the English language, no one told him off or complained because he was exercising his rights as an Englishman.
Unfortunately Piset you do not have that right, so you have to concede that you are my inferior when it comes to using MY language.

[mahwatT]

Piset, as an Englishman I have more rights to my language than a self imposed Thai exile lurking in Shangmai

Ian:

Who gave you that "right?"

PPP voters?

A challenge is a challenge, such as I am challenging your "authoritativeness" in English semantic. You were born in England and to the English citizen's family. I accept that. However, I do not think you have any more credential to back up your authoritativeness in English semantic than anyone who have know the word "challenge" for ages. Now, you are challenged.

Ah Piset you foolish fellow, yet again you display your ignorance, even though I have explained this to others like you on the Nation weblog. Now pay close attention
Unlike many languages such as French, the English language has no officially formulated structure, the French language for example is defined by the "French Academy" (I give it the English name to save you having to translate the French).
There are "approved" spellings, meanings and grammatical structures in English but they are neither binding nor enforceable. It is this very looseness that gives English its versatility.
Now moving on, a German speaks German, an Italian speaks Italian and a Thai speaks Thai.
By extention of this simple concept an Englishman speaks English, but as previously explained, as English has no official structure, I as an Englishman can claim to speak English, you as a Thai can never claim to speak English, At best you can claim to speak a subset of English which was once taught to you (I fear none to well) at some school.
Thus I have total authority to claim to speak correct English, simply because I am English. The most another Englishman could accuse me of is using none approved English. Fortunately in such a case English people do not castigate minority opinions. Just for the record Shakespeare introduced over 2000 new words into the English language, no one told him off or complained because he was exercising his rights as an Englishman.
Unfortunately Piset you do not have that right, so you have to concede that you are my inferior when it comes to using MY language.