<i>you've lost the debate</i>

The debate is not to win or lose. The debate is to learn and decide accordingly.

Is anyone reading the references I'm posting? Or just guessing? Here's what ABC News says:

<b>http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=362864</b>

OK, yes, I just read that entire thing. Now here's the big question. Did YOU read it? Obviously not.

Saying that the government conceded it failed to issue broad public warnings that could have saved lives is a whole lot different from saying they deliberately witheld the information out of greed.

Boy can you twist the words!!! I suppose if you read in the paper that a driver failed to stop at a stop sign and a pedestrian was killed, you'd state that it said &quot;driver purposely slams into pedestrian deliberately killing him because he didn't like him&quot;.

You guys are so interested in who is right or wrong. Get going on getting funds to these areas. Postings by some of you are only ego trips.

Now, Patrick...

We have two contemporary stories from independent sources stating that the reason was tourism.

We have a direct quote from a Met official in Thailand who has been trying to get a system implemented for the past 7 years.

We have a story from the archives about a quake 5 years ago that wasn't announced because the government feared impacting tourism.

My standard of proof has been met. What is yours?