Headline news!

The latest comment on my post about the prime minister’s office influencing Bhutan Today was by “mediawatch” who challenged:

Mr OL You got to do some explaining here! We are not convinced. TR has given his explanation and made his stand clear. Now Mr OL you need to put a brave face and give your reasons. otherwise we are going to take this as one of your several political gimmicks!

And the comment before that was by “Guest” who pleaded:

I am still pleading with the OL to explain to me how he sees that issue which escapes me totally. My request is genuine.

If Bhutan Today wishes to publish the cabinet’s press releases as their own stories, so be it. I may not agree with them. But I wouldn’t be overly concerned either. After all, we must remember that Bhutan Today was established barely 14 months ago, and that they were the first daily newspaper. So if, in order to meet their daily deadlines, they cut a few corners, I am not about to complain.

I would, however, be concerned if the prime minister’s press officer started influencing Bhutan Today. And very concerned if the PM’s press officer was associated with Bhutan Today when they published the cabinet’s press releases as their own stories. That, unfortunately, is what seems to have happened.

Tenzin Rigden, the PM’s press officer, has admitted in a letter that he “helped” Bhutan Today. And that he had helped “…with story headlines, captions and the design as well”.

Story headlines! The PM’s press officer says he helped Bhutan Today with their story headlines!

It’s no wonder that two journalists – one from Bhutan Observer, the other from Business Bhutan – asked me, on separate occasions, what I thought about Tenzin Rigden editing stories in Bhutan Today.

But for some odd reason, both the papers have decided not to publish what they told me was headline news.

 

Facebook Comments:

Comments

  1. mediawatch says:

    Thank you for responding.

    TR helped Bhutan Today, no denying that. TR himself have made this clear, succinctly and you have mentioned it too.

    The question here is did TR cross the ethical line? Is TR government’s media spokesperson in the “conventional” meaning of the word? Is he spinning yarns, manipulating the media? Is TR influencing the media, always trying to portray the government as doing something massively positive?

    Yes, at the first place, ethically speaking, he should not have volunteered to help Bhutan Today. However, now that he has, is he “influencing” Bhutan Today?

    If he is the conventional government spin doctor, that people are taking him to be, perhaps he could. Misgivings cannot be helped.

    But look at the design, Bhutan Today looks much better and reader friendly than it was ever. Look at the headlines, it looks catchy, attractive and grasps readers eyes instantly like never before. Look at the content, haven’t it improved by leaps and bounds.

    This is because TR is a media professional. He knows the tricks of the trade inside out, and that sets him as a class apart.

    Well, if Bhutan Today really did an earth shattering story on Mr PM and his government, with over the head, flowery language, praising PM and his government, then there is a cause to worry. If TR had used Bhutan Today as a propaganda outlet of the DPT government, there would be a reason to worry.

    How does an improved Bhutan Today be a cause of worry for the opposition? Rather if we view this from the otherside, I feel an improved Bhutan Today would mean a notch up for the quality of media. How many times have we been told and re-told that media needs to be strengthened – the watchdog kind of media – and not a poodle type.

    Bhutan Today reporters have benefited when TR taught the basic skills of reporting and writing to them. The management is happy that an improved Bhutan Today would mean more grounds to bargain for advertisements, that would eventually guarantee the survival of the fledgling daily newspaper.

    Well, if people want to believe TR is a crook, they may go ahead. But I don’t see an inkling of reason, unless it is political, for TR to be influencing Bhutan Today.

    Anyway, if TR is a true journalist (even if he is not a good person as many have said so) what matters is that he should perform his duty as the press officer of the PM in the right way. If he does not, we know, he knows – the media is there – to write about it!

    My understanding why Business Bhutan did not write about TR is because if they did write on grounds of hearsay, without checking the actual facts – the repercussion would have been quite strange. I have mentioned it in the earlier posts.That would tantamount to being penny wise, pound foolish. They chose to be wise!

    Why Observer chose not to cover, I believe it is because they were convinced there was not much point chasing this pointless controversy!

    Media fraternity cannot engage in unnecessary warfare. If they have problems, they can sort it out through mutual dialogue.

    I rest my case!!
    cheers!

  2. OL-la,
    I am curious why you delated most of the comments from your earlier article “Controlling Influence” and left only with those comments which appear to me are mostly from TR under different nicks.

    As for case with TR I think he is a case of intelligence gone wrong. He thinks readers like us are fools. Most of us may not have gone to fancy univertities or read tons and tons of books like you or may not have association with important people,but we have the natural commonsense to know what you are upto and where it will lead what you are doing now.

    TR says(Mediawatch) says above that why Business Bhutan and Bhutan Observer did not choose to write about TR was because it was just a hearsay or they are not convienced enough. Well,I would say they did not write because they were fear of loosing their jobs and also of many other repercussions,afterall TR himself made it very clear that he has huge connections in the Bhutanese Media world,not to mention he is also a PO now. I don’t think any reporter who fell from the grace of TR will ever get so easily to work in the media field.
    And TR, a pice of advice-we are living in the age of internet. It is not very difficult to trace who is commenting under what nicks. So,man of your standing should use your own name, which you should be very proud of, and explain to us your standing without flaunting your connections and achievements,afterall,what use are those for a publicman like you,if people don’t appriciate it.

  3. @drups: my fault–I’d changed the settings to allow for “easier” viewing of latest posts.But, in the process, I’d made it difficult to view older posts. Thanks for the pointer. tshering

  4. Dear OL,

    Thank you for posting of this explanation, I am relieved that the implications of what Tenzin Rigden is doing is not so perilous or destabilizing as it was made out to be.

    From this explanation, you seem to have three issues:

    1. Partial plagiarism;
    2. BT’s Reproductioin of the PMO’s Press Release as their own stories; and
    3. Tenzin Rigden “helping” out Bhutan Today with the coining/rephrasing of their story headlines.

    As accepted by you, since Bhutan Today is a new paper with largely inexperienced reporters, I think we can turn a blind eye to their occasional “cutting corners” as you put it. If you and I are not making such a hullaballoo over the good old Kuensel reporting inaccurate and poorly researched stories, surely we can expect some small lapses from a paper barely one and a half years old.

    The charge that Bhutan Today is reproducing whole of the PMO’s Press Release as a story done by them, I agree that it is not a very nice thing to do. That is total plagiarism and an honorable paper cannot be caught doing such a thing. However, the matter does not deserve a national debate.

    If the PMO finds that their work has been plagiarized by Bhutan Today and if they find it objectionable, or if it is seen as a usurpation of their intellectual right over the authorship of the paper, it is a matter between the PMO and Bhutan Today. The PMO should take the paper to task – should they find that a disservice has been done or that facts have been distorted or it is seen to have brought some disrepute to the office or if some wrong message has been conveyed to the nation and the people at large as a result of the paper printing the Press Release as a news item. But his should be a matter between the perpetrator and the perpetrated and I don’t see why we are bursting a blood vessel discussing this.

    The other issue is that if, Tenzin Rigden, as the head of the PMO’s Press Secretariat prefers the dissemination of information relating to the PMO to appear as a news item, if he decides that it is more effective that way, isn’t that his decision? Doesn’t he have that prerogative to decide? Or, does a standing rule prohibit such a thing? As far as I am concerned, if I am to do a job well, I will settle on the best medium and the best format and the best channel to deliver my message. Unless ofcourse, it is illegal. And, unless ofcourse the owners and the editors of the paper are not agreeable. But they were happy to do it. Unless, again, Tenzin Rigden used his clout to subjugate the paper into doing something they did not want to do.

    Did Tenzin Rigden withhold, from other media houses, information that he passed on to Bhutan Today? Was Bhutan Today treated with some kind of exclusivity? If he did that, then this is not acceptable because that constitute preferential treatment.

    On the issue of Tenzin Rigden “helping” out Bhutan Today with the coining/rephrasing of their story headlines, surely no one should begrudge Bhutan Today if they seek some professional help from a person of Tenzin Rigden’s credentials. No one can deny that Tenzing Rigden can dish out some seriously helpful tips to the young and inexperienced reporters who today populate the media houses. What happened to our Buddhist sense of chivalry? Since when has being helpfulness become unethical and undemocratic? Seriously, we need to reconsider the route our thought process is taking under the democratic system.

    Regardless, all said and done, please remember that a large percentage of those of us who read the papers are literate and therefore we are able to apply our analytical mind to decide whether the contents of a newspaper is truthful and valid. We are not going to swallow whole whatever has been written.

  5. concerned says:

    Bhutanses democracy is heading for the wall at break neck speed.
    U have a very very strong and intelligent Prime Minister with a near absolute majority with friends in the Judiciary and has also married his son into the Royal household (nothing wrong with that since our royal family is the best in the world) but a clever move nevertheless on part of JYT. He has alredy got DHI and REC under his thumb and in the process awarded 1000 acres at the speed of light for his nepwhe and son’s education city proposal.
    He now has hired a media hitman TR with strong connections to supress and control the media so everything is done hush hush.
    His next plan obivously is to make his party tshogpas stronger then Dzongdas which he is doing.

    Best of luck JYT. Remember history has shown that the worst crimes have been commited by thsoe who thought that they meant well.
    JYT has alredy bescome the Chairman Mao for the civil service who have to make ‘great leaps’ with blindfolds and unquestioning dedeication so that his nepotistic and autocratic rule can prosper.

    Meanwhile pleaes supress the medi more and kill it. Three cheers for JYT long live the new and uncrowned King of Bhutan.

  6. Guest,
    If I were u, I’d not feel relieved that soon. You r trying to kill the vitality of the issue by oversimplifying it. Read the last para of OL’s article. ” But for odd reason,both papers have decided not to publish what they told me was headline news.”

    What was the reason for not publishing,despite the fact that both BS and BO considered a headline news?

  7. MediaWatch (aka TR): You are insulting the intelligence of other people participating in this forum. What you are trying to do is very clear: You try to distract and divert the attention of the readers from a very important issue concerning “Media Independence” to something so trivial as Bhutan Today’s (BT) design, look, etc.. We are not that stupid. I just bought a copy of BT, and I don’t see anything great.

    Some quick thoughts:

    1. I agree that TR knows the tricks of the media trade inside out. That’s why it’s a cause of great concern. As you have pointed out, he doesn’t mind crossing the ethical line. And, on the other hand, DPT government has always been trying to intimidate the media. We know that from their decision to ban BBS live broadcast of NA sessions and other cases. This combination, TR and DPT Govt., poses a great threat to the future of Media Independence.

    2. We never know what intentions TR has in taking control of BT. It’s too early to judge. As you have pointed out, he may have the intention to use Bhutan Today as a propaganda outlet of the DPT govt. We can’t rule that out.

    3. Yes, we agree that media needs to be strengthened. But PM’s Press Officer and his team can’t favor just one newspaper in this manner. BT is a direct competitor to all other media organizations in the country.

    4. Some people have mentioned about TR’s generosity and have questioned our Buddhist sense of helping others and compassion. I don’t know if sacking the Editor and several reporters of BT to provide employment for TR’s own people can qualify for Buddhist compassion and helpfulness. I don’t think BT’s management would have fired the Editor and reporters before their discussion and understanding with TR.

    I believe the OL has the responsibility and obligation to caution and inform the people and the nation about such important issues. Once again, it’s about “Media Independence” and safeguarding our “Fragile Democracy.”

    The very fact that Business Bhutan and Bhutan Observer backed out at the last minute and did not cover this important story is indication of the critical threat to Media Independence.

  8. When there is something amiss in other fraternities it is news for the media. When something is amiss in the media industry, they hide it. Media bodies must cooperate but not to the extent to hide misgivings within the media fraternity itself.

    It may be up to the media organizations not to run the TR story it is their prerogative. We as readers have no say; all we can do is boycott reading the papers. After all what valuable news can our journalists, who are either big smokers, drunkards, gamblers, or sex and drug addicts, give us.

    TR’s control of Bhutan Today is a story. In fact it is a big story. It is a pity the media does not think so.

    SHAME ON YOU ALL

  9. Sakten Guy says:

    The rumors speaks that TR went to kuensel asking them not to run the story and Managing director of Bhutan Today went around to all the media houses threating them of bad repercussion…Why TR went to Kuensel and Why MD of Bhutan today threaten other newspaper lies the story ? may be its for the media watch to answer.

  10. These deluded and overtly prejudiced jerks will never understand the conscience of righteousness. “Mediawatch” and “guest” are none other than TR himself or the dogs who couldn’t survive without him. They can not see beyond the horizons of their safety zones and personal interests and, will ferociously guard it even though they know deep down their hearts that they are wrong.
    1. Lyonchen should not have appointed TR as his spokesman knowing that TR is a media magnate in Bhutan. His appointment will lead to controversy but he is appointed anyway. Now we have two questions: (a) is our Lyonchen so ignorant that such appointments will lead to such controversies? OR, (b) did our Lyonchen played fool and intentionally appointed TR to his office so that he could control the media as well? We may forgive him if he was ignorant of it but looks like he is not so stupid to be so ignorant. He appointed TR because he knew very well that TR was sort of media tycoon in Bhutan who could easily influence all the media that is there in Bhutan. If not checked, this will lead to a different era of darkness. This, OL pointed out, is dangerous and he is right.
    2. TR was not appointed rightly. No selection. No interviews. If PM can appoint the people he trusts and he likes into these important posts, what about other posts? Why can’t the RCSC people send their own nephews and nieces for scholarships? Why can’t the Police Officer turn a blind eye to the crimes their friends and relatives commit? Why can’t the people in the Home Ministry register census of people they like and deny census to others they do not like? Where is the rule of law? Is our wise PM aware of the repercussions his actions will sent into the whole system? I wouldn’t say a word if he appointed a guy of his own choice as his DPT spokesman but he appointed someone as a Spokesman of “our” government which represents the whole nation.
    Will these things every get into the brains of these jerks? NO. NEVER. Don’t even try to convince them.

  11. why? for the love of god is this happening…why are you making a mountain out of mole?
    What TR is doing, as you can see is wrong….he has published press release with bylines…how can someone defend him. Is he allowed to do so? TR says he is helping out Bhutan Today, but Does HELP come with a whole lot of money.
    OK fine then,TR has defined the word HELP in a whole new sense. Oh or rather he is covering up for the money that he has taken from BToday.
    He is doing something unethical, TR is one of the learned person in media, no one can deny the fact, but why are people covering up for him, who is this Mediawatch..Can you justify TR taking money for the help that he has offered Bhutan Today…

  12. Well, i am still wondering what is wrong in helping someone, especially when someone is at the brink of collapse! I am not able to comprehend how help can be equated to control! While there is a possibility of leading help to control, however, i don’t find any evidences/support wherein Bhutan Today is being controlled by someone. So, unless someone substantiate on how it is being controlled, i may not be able to buy this argument. I would certainly condemn media office, in case, if they are being selective in sharing information to different media houses. But i didn’t see such accusations. So, am wondering why it has become a big issue!

  13. Well samdrups, this is why the OL qualifies as a very successful Opposition Leader. His job isn’t to sing praises about the government’s achievements but to make an issue of all the nonissues. The OL has a knack of making a mountain out of a mole hill and bringing out the worst in people such as the Tangba who, without realizing it, is led into a stream of verbal tirade without making an iota of sense. Can you imagine what would happen if the OL had 10 more members of his party in the NA? I shudder to think!

    I do realize that the OL has to do what he has to do. That is his job and he gets paid for it and he occupies a chair for it. But like the Tangba so eloquently put it, we “deluded and overtly prejudiced jerks who will never understand the conscience of righteousness” will have to sift through all the muck that is written and decide for ourselves what is good and what is trash.

  14. The OL is not making a mountain out of a mole hill. It’s an important concerning “Media Independence” and safeguarding our “Fragile Democracy.” And I believe the OL has the responsibility and obligation to caution and inform the people and the nation about such important issues.

  15. concerned says:

    ‘media watch’ ‘guest’ and ‘bumo’ are clearly rigden suppoter from Bhutan today and journalist. People please boycott both papers for the sake of media freedom.

  16. Desperate Today

    Desperate times call for desperate measures. That is exactly the situation that Bhutan Today is dealing with at the moment. The nation’s least popular and therefore also the nation’s least sold newspaper is facing critical times. Having reached a juncture where a new team, guided by the PM’s media spokesperson, has come in to prove that the face of the newspaper can be changed, the newspaper which began as the first daily in the country has fallen further down the rungs in terms of quality of articles and journalistic ethics.

    But just how much can we expect from a newspaper whose managing editor does not have proper credentials required for the post?

    So desperate is the situation that its March 15 issue carried two letters to the editor written by its own news team. The first one was targeted at the RBP with which the newspaper is in a tussle following an earlier letter carrying false allegations against the Chief of Police, which later was learnt to have been written by someone in the news team.

    Is using this space ‘letter to editor’ for personal vendetta ethical?

    The second letter to the editor proves the unethical journalism practiced in Bhutan Today’s newsroom. The sender praises Tenzin Rigden’s role in changing the face of the newspaper, comparing Bhutan Today with the five other newspapers. The drama that unfolds in the letter as one reads it leaves no suspicion that it was written by someone in Bhutan Today’s newsroom. It may be acceptable to compare Bhutan Today with the newcomers Business Bhutan and the Journalist; or Bhutan Times and Bhutan Observer which too is questionable, but imagine comparing Bhutan Today with Kuensel.

    Can we compare an ugly moth to butterflies?

    The sleaze and sensationalism which is the trademark of the team that Rigden brought along with him is thriving in Bhutan Today. Articles on drugs and prostitution dominate its front pages – stories written without proper research and thought. If Bhutan Today is to be believed, 20-25% of Bhutanese are either gays or lesbians. No stone is left unturned in their attempt to sell the newspaper – even if it means slurring the nation or being rampant with obvious plagiarism.

    Does a newspaper that lifts 60% of its content from the net have credibility?

    Bhutan Today’s situation is pathetic, but the way to come out of this dumps is neither by defaming the other newspapers, nor by bringing in unrealistic facts and figures to sensationalize news. There are ways, morally correct and socially acceptable, which are to be followed and practiced if it is to outgrow its infancy. Otherwise there is no other path for Bhutan Today, but down. For now, this is one newspaper I would not like to see my children grow up reading.

    Do I need to elaborate on what people already know?

  17. Media Detective says:

    My intution tells me…….

    That something in on in the media industry. ohhhh….I must have been away too long. My keen ears and nose will reveal the truth soon.

    I am back.

  18. check out Bhutan Today story ‘Bhutan Fashion Theme Rocks Ramp” in its issue of March 8, and compare with Times of India Story ‘The Dynamic Trio’.

    upright Plagiarism

    Is this what some mean by saying Bhutan Today has improved since TR assumed the driver’s seat?

  19. media detective says:

    Are Bhutan Today, TR and DPT govt. under public scan? How interesting.

  20. Rigden should take the hint from readers, journalists and the intellegensia on the issue and make a graceful exit before he is asked to leave.
    The press officer’s job is not an easy one as it is so why risk one’s reuptation and lose friends holding onto such a post which by default becomes controversial since TR is sitting on it.

  21. mediawatch says:

    Interesting stuff! Lot of people here started blabbering in high-blown verbosity about “media independence” and protecting the “Fragile democracy” and completely murdered me and ‘guest’ taking us for TR himself.

    Let’s not get into rhetorics otherwise this debate will never end. so they say argument is the end of logic, and i see that happening already. What is obviously wrong is that lot of OL fanatics and PDP enthusiasts are blatantly attacking an INDIVIDUAL and politicizing the whole issue, some of them even have been using words that tantamount to defamation. Now that is not such a good thing to do!

    Tangba: “These deluded and overtly prejudiced jerks will never understand the conscience of righteousness. “Mediawatch” and “guest” are none other than TR himself or the dogs who couldn’t survive without him.”

    Now Tangba, by being so venomous, do you think any one will take you seriously. I pity you. You have fallen down because you cannot stand the truth of the matter. And you use tirade as a defense. And Guest, I go by what you said about Tangba – he is just blabbering , making no sense.

    Another DORJI wrote: “And I believe the OL has the responsibility and obligation to caution and inform the people and the nation about such important issues.”

    Yes the OL has been doing that, all the time. It is his job. He is the OPPOSITION. I admire OL’s courage, gift of the gab and his resolute stand. But sometimes, as he is human too, he commits errors of judgement.

    He was against the appointment of TR as PM’s press officer. Would he have been against if someone other than TR was appointed? OL understands very well the importance of a capable (influential) media person? And TR being there at the PMO is a threat to his political interests, to PDP’s interest. And obviously, OL has succeeded in making this issue a mountain of a mole! That’s why he does what he does the best – OPPOSE!

    But I admire him when he chases serious issues like CDG – which would definitely will bring down DPT government, if something is not done at the earliest.

    If we talk about Media Independence, Bhutan Today is just one small fragment of the larger picture. Aren’t we being myopic when we just see faults with BToday when it is trying to revive itself from the ‘shity’ newspaper its has always been. It might be easier to write of the world that is in crisis, what they should do and should not, by sitting on a comfortable chair, but the reality is much harder than it is.

    I say Give BToday a chance to grow. If you care about media freedom and democracy and all this stuff, give critical feedbacks on how the paper should improve, not a skeptic view on how BToday is going down the drain, how it is slurring the nation, how it is unethical! Let’s be constructive!!

    And perhaps, that is one of the biggest role of the opposition leader and this blog (that he obviously created to gain support as PM hired TR to do so. See the smarter always outdoes the dumb. way to go!)

  22. Bhutan Today, take a hint.

    Your connection with TR will always be an issue within the media industry. Stories your reporters come up with will always be deemed as supplied by TR. Other newspapers will always fear that TRs influence in the govt. will channel ads to you. As long as TR drops by Bhutan Today, especially at odd hours, the other newspapers will be wary of you.

    I have today’s issue in front of me. I glance over it as I take a sip of coffee. The article “RBA-BODO SKIRMISH” catches my eye. It is a grave concern for me whenever there is something from the border. The sacrifice our soldiers make for us is something we may never be able to repay. Thanks to them we can sleep peacefully. So immediately I conjured action and loss of lives, but hoping there is no loss of lives.

    A big story, deserving front page space. But you aborted the story before birth with that ridiculous lead. This is not how it is taught in journalism classes. The lead attracts readers to read the following paragraphs. The action story was aborted before birth because of the vegetable story.

    This is how a good example of how to kill a good story. CONGRATS

  23. media detective says:

    CASE – IS TR in BToday unethical?

    Background
    TR is helping BToday even though he is in PM’s media office. Other newspapers are not happy.

    Facts
    – TR accepted he helped BToday, in training of reporters.
    – Any govt. organization should not have hands in media organizations.
    – TR’s team is running BToday.

    Judgement
    – TR should not be involved in a news organization so long as he is in PM’s media office. Therefore he is guilty.

    Case closed

  24. Media Watch: Once again, why are you trying to mislead others by deliberately ignoring the obvious? This debate is beyond copy/pasting cabinet press releases and TR. It’s about the PMO’s Press Officer and his team taking control (editing, reporting, etc.) of one of the only two DAILY newspapers in the country. Even if you are not TR, you are an intelligent person. Don’t you think TR and his team is infringing on Media Independence, especially in light of how DPT government has been trying to intimidate the Media through banning of BBS live telecast of NA session and others?

    I don’t think you can deny the importance of Media Independence in a democracy, can you? So unless you don’t care about the future of this nation and our, I’ll say it again, “Fragile Democracy” you should be concerned when the independence of media is being compromised. It’s so clear, straightforward, and obvious.

    But the most interesting thing is, you have now exposed the secret by accepting (last para) that the PM has hired TR to influence the media and garner political support by saying that just like OL is using this blog to gain support, PM has hired TR to do so. And adding: “See the smarter always outdoes the dumb. Way to go!”

    Now tell us: Who is the hypocrite? Who is trying to cover up an important issue? Who is telling the truth? Who is politicizing this important debate? And who is trying to fool the readers of this forum and concerned citizens of this nation.

  25. Thank you Bhutan Today,

    At last I get coverage, although only 2000 copies. Nonetheless it is limelight.

    Where I was taught (US), I learned you can make changes to press releases so long as you do not add information to what is stated in the article. A journalist is allowed to adjust and modify the articles to suit a newspaper’s news policy.

    Where you pursued journalism must be few kilometers from our border.

    You may have done a favor to the SEM GAWAI TASHA team by running a story, but calling Tshering Nidup DUMP (dumb) is a very derogatory term one should avoid using, especially in a newspaper.

    And please readers do understand the phrase ‘free of cost’. Do need to emphasize it by using the word CHARITY, which again is somewhat derogatory.

    But today’s issue is an improvement. Only 50% content was from the net.

  26. After 2 weeks of constant argument on this issue, this sudden silence is unbearable. It is more eerie than the thunderous lashes that writers commented, against and for, TR being in the PM’s office and controlling Bhutan Today’s editorial.

    As they say, is this the ‘calm before the storm’?

    Something is brewing up in the media industry. Good or bad I have no idea. Just a feeling that something is going to happen soon. The weather is like my mood – foul.

    Silence on this forum is like entering an old house alone at dusk.

  27. We guys were arguing on this blog and you all go to bhutantimes.com. Come back. I find this blog easier to navigate.

Leave a Reply