outboard

I do not consider myself to be a racist. More a pragmatist.

I would just like to pose a question to Mr. Bluespunk. (My apoligies if you have already answered it somewhere amongst your other numerous posts).

Let's say YOU are the OIC of a Police Precinct/Station. Your Command has been receiving complaints, tip offs, confessions from busted users, etc., regarding street (drug) dealing on your patch for months. All the official reports, surviellance, all the official complaints, all the News stories, blogs and Social media headlines are the same. It has reached the stage where it has become common public knowlege, what is happening on your turf, and who is responsible. The alleged offenders are always, almost without exception, described as being Non native 'Black' Males, of African origin.

What is your Monday Morning briefing going to say?

What are your instructions to your troops?

Observe.

Investigate.

If need be entrap.

Gather evidence.

Target individuals for arrest based on all the above.

Then act.

it was observed that black men were selling drugs at this location

it was observed there were black men loitering at this location on the police arrival

they took these black men that they found at this location into legal custody to further their investigations and gather evidence

the black men at this location were who they targeted , based on the evidence they had that these men were selling drugs at this location

and they did act

Any arrest needs to be targeted and based upon solid investigation.

Just arresting coloured people on the grounds some coloured people have been accused of doing something wrong is neither.

It's indiscriminate.

Just going out with the sole intent of arresting coloured people is wrong.

Investigate and gather information first.

Smart target your arrests.

Arresting on the basis of colour is not the way to stop the crime.

It's also stupid.

you are the only one that thinks they arrested anyone on basis of colour

they arrested black men selling drugs

the arrests were targeted , on the black men selling drugs

they went out with the sole intent on arresting the black men at this location that were selling drugs

they had gathered information , the information was that black men at this location were selling drugs

now you are calling it indiscriminate, good to see you finally came around and stopped calling it discrimination

obviously arresting the white women in the area when the reports were that black men were selling drugs there would be your preferred method of stopping the crime, but logic dictates , that if the reports are of black men openly selling drugs in this location then you will get better results targeting black men

I do not consider myself to be a racist. More a pragmatist.

I would just like to pose a question to Mr. Bluespunk. (My apoligies if you have already answered it somewhere amongst your other numerous posts).

Let's say YOU are the OIC of a Police Precinct/Station. Your Command has been receiving complaints, tip offs, confessions from busted users, etc., regarding street (drug) dealing on your patch for months. All the official reports, surviellance, all the official complaints, all the News stories, blogs and Social media headlines are the same. It has reached the stage where it has become common public knowlege, what is happening on your turf, and who is responsible. The alleged offenders are always, almost without exception, described as being Non native 'Black' Males, of African origin.

What is your Monday Morning briefing going to say?

What are your instructions to your troops?

Observe.

Investigate.

If need be entrap.

Gather evidence.

Target individuals for arrest based on all the above.

Then act.

it was observed that black men were selling drugs at this location

it was observed there were black men loitering at this location on the police arrival

they took these black men that they found at this location into legal custody to further their investigations and gather evidence

the black men at this location were who they targeted , based on the evidence they had that these men were selling drugs at this location

and they did act

@outboard

"80 police officers were sent to hunt down and round up the darker-skinned people found around Sukhumvit sois 3 to 13, Petchaburi and Ratchaprarop roads."

That is not a drugs raid. It is profiling based on colour. That is racist. The term hunt in itself is repugnant as was the whole basis for this raid by the BIB.

No idea what you said after your first line. You want your posts to be read then leave out the insults.

and that is why you are wrong so often , you are too lazy to read a post in the same thread much less do any research. that is why your opinion is worthless, it has no backing to it except you suddenly had some notion that something was racist

it is not profiling , for the reasons that have been posted many times already

it is not racist for the reason posted already

all your posts are spam accusing the Thai government departments of being racist, that is defamation , against forum rules , against the law in Thailand, both criminal and civil, that makes you a criminal.

More good news. You guys can play the racism card all you want, fortunately Thais and Thailand could not care less about such matters. Fact is the vast majority of drug dealers etc. in the mentioned area are black, hence it makes lots of sense to go after black people.

As a sidenote, most of the mentioned black people in that area are here illegally as well, which I am sure the police will find out once they check their passports and missing workpermits.

I think you'll find the majority of drug dealers here in Thailand are Thai.

i think you will find the majority of drug dealers from 3 to 13 on sukhumvit aren't hence the raid.

the terminology may be politically incorrect, but the logic behind the raids was sound.

I have no problem with drugs raids or the gaoling of the scum who deal in them.

However I have a real issue with a strategy that is based on the assumption a persons colour is sufficient reason to target them.

your problem is thinking you can think

they had reports of black men selling drugs at this location so they went there and targeted black men at that location

now if they went to Harlem and rounded up all the black men to check them for drugs you might have a reason to scream racism, but in this case the black men hanging around that area were reported to be openly selling drugs and so they had a description, not a race, not a racial profile , a description , that description was several black men at that location selling drugs, so when they went to that location they did not round up the white women there, they targeted the black men, as that was the description they had of who was openly selling drugs in that location. obviously white women only come to Thailand to sell drugs because they don't come here for the bar girls everyone else comes here for so it would be a good racial profiling job to target white women , but that would be racist and racial profiling and no one had reported seeing white women selling drugs at that location so it made sense to actually target the people that fitted the description of the drug dealers, black men . now it may have made you feel better if they had of described the black men selling drugs as, people about as tall as 2 dwarfs on top of each other with really good suntans that they may have had since birth. but that is a long winded way of saying black men. not racial profiling, not racist, simply the description of who was selling the drugs. If I rang the police in Australia and reported 2 Caucasian men standing at the corner selling drugs, would the police on arrival be racist if they found 4 Caucasian men and asked all of them for ID and detained them for a chat (and if the laws allowed got them to piss in a cup) or would they be doing a bit of due diligence and catching criminals ?

People are innocent till proven guilty. However, it is good police practice to interview suspects and all concerned immediately after the crime is reported to capture the facts.

what is the source of your information on "good police practice"?

because logic would dictate that an interview carried out by police will not last long if you call them in immediately someone makes an accusation, you would only have a single question to ask ....

someone said you did this , did you ?

and of course they say no

where do you go now ?

no more questions , thank them for coming in , write up a report saying they say they didn't do it and go back to the accuser saying the accused said they didn't do it ?

seriously do you people think before you post ?

What the hell ! only recently i saw a Thai guy selling bongs at a walking street market !

Thais do not require work permits.

And the Thais probably don't have 304 grams of marijuana sitting next to them while they are selling it.

If you read the full article no one was arrested for the bongs but 2 have been charged for possession of a class 5 drug.

So for those keeping track at home...

Making bongs - OK

Selling bongs online - Not enough to get you arrested

Having a supermarket bag full of drugs and posting photos online of you sleeping on drugs - Now you are in trouble.

Well from what I know, 2 of the Russians have been arrested and will

be able to go back to their hut awaiting trial once they paid their bail

which I recon will be around 40'000 to 60'000 THB each.

Court date will probably be in about 7 to 8 weeks time, just so they would

overstay their visa. Fairly common.

As for the fine, well it's a bit of a gamble but I recon 3 months suspended

for 1 year prison and 5'000 to 10'000 THB fine reduced by 50% it they

admit to their crime. Probably not even a stamp in their passport unless

off course, immigration and labor department get involved too.

Suppose the outcome of the trial depends entirely on the attitude of those

two Russians arrested)

The other six Russians had their details taken and have been released

without charge.

As for "Supermarket Bag full of drugs", you're kidding?

304 grams of compressed marijuana is about as much as 3 to 5 cigarette

packets, hardly "supermarket bags' full. Unless you take those real tinny

bags but even they will not even be half full.

304 grams is 10 oz , just how big are your cigarette packets ?

People were targeted on the basis of colour. Fact.

No investigation, gathering of evidence or observation of behaviour took place. Fact.

So how did they know where to look? It's not like they were just arresting black people at random all over the city.

Its not the fact they knew where to look or the nationality of those they arrested that makes this whole event racist.

It's the fact they did no surveillance beforehand.

It's the fact they gathered no evidence.

It's the fact that no intelligence took place.

It's the fact they "hunted" people on the basis of colour.

It's the fact that this whole operation was based solely upon prejudice, bigotry and racial profiling.

Is that clear enough for you?

there you are banging on about racism again when you refuse to accept the definition of it.

As for your claims that there was no investigation, no planing, no surveillance, no evidence, no intelligence, it is clear that all these things in fact did take place , they had a planned operation to target that street and obviously had some reason to be targeting black people in that location.

If they have had reports that black men are openly selling drugs at this location it would be stupid to go targeting white women at this location.

and yes everything you say is perfectly clear to all of us, most of us disagree with you because you seem to not be thinking things through before posting

Are there reports of black men selling drugs in this location ? yes there are , people in this thread have said they have seen this.

Would it make sense to round up everyone in this area after having reports that black men were committing the crime? no. the EVIDENCE is eyewitness reports of black men committing the crime

Look at your post measured against your own values -:

crime being committed - defamation

surveillance - search of TV forums person is seen often posting in threads related to Thai government bodies.

evidence - history of calling Thai government bodies racist with no supporting evidence. makes accusations of misconduct and incompetence with no supporting evidence. forms opinion with no research and then states it as fact.

points of proof required for conviction -:

person has made untrue statements about another person or organisation - proved

these untrue statements have caused damage to that other person or organisation - not proved , on the balance of probability most people would dispute his assumptions as being heretical and far fetched

result -: charge would be unlikely to be proved due to reputation of accused

TL;DR -: no point targeting white women when reports are black men did it. Things are not racist just because you want them to be

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

They should do for everyone, why to profile based on the color.

If race is motive, look like Thai police needs a color blind test first!

Just go walk around these areas and keep a score (the teams being Africans vs. non-Africans) on your phone every time you are offered drugs, then publish the result.

Just go on the same street and keep a score on your phone everytime you see a drunk or everytime you see someone under the influence of drug...then i think it would be time to arrest tonight all the farangs in this street

I am not saying, "Not arrest the Nigerians", they should test all foreigners in the street and lockup the one shows test positive. I also don't care majority is Nigerian or not, why only they pick test on people looking black!

Similar to the Human rights indicate the illegal migrant labors in the boat, Human Rights will take up this case. This news is just the best piece of the Thai racism towards not white tourists. If they think they are here illegally, why they give visa in first place ? Thai police wanted money from them, but not Nigerians. What if Japan stamps Thais as unruly crowd and illegal workers and rounding them up in Japan and bring them to detention centers for clarifications ?

I hope world will change.

yes that makes sense , they get reports of Black men selling drugs openly in this street so they should round up all the white women and test them

Thais are racist because they are targeting non-Thais for investigation in illegal immigrant worker cases ? you are right they should check all Thais first to see if they are illegal immigrants , I think you are on to something there , I have never met a Thai with a visa to be in the country much less a work permit

I can at a push imagine someone wanting to end their life (physical or emotional endpoints), but even then, why take other people out without their consent? I can't imagine that extreme, it's just too far for my limited imagination.

Secondly, why would an auto-pilot piece of software allow an imminent failure?

Lastly, can someone explain this to me? "The A320 is designed with safeguards to allow emergency entry if a pilot inside is unresponsive, but the override code known to the crew does not go into effect — and indeed goes into a lockdown".

the door can be locked from inside to stop anyone getting into the cockpit, to do this means you need to be able to lock out the crew code, if someone wanted to take control of an aircraft they would have to get into the cockpit, if the crew refuse to let them in they might be killed to encourage other crew members to be more compliant, if they cant get in there is no point killing them.

I never heard of ths incident before now, and the story doesn't say when it happened. Or did I miss something?

yes

google is your friend !!!!

there are reports now that he recently broke up with his girlfriend and has been diagnosed with some sort of sight problem that would curtail his flying career in addition to the anti-depression meds found at his apartment may provide some some sort of questions.

This is what Thai people find funny, subtitles included. Tell me what you think. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIipf6uzVxQ

that is funny, subtitles and all

but then I am a fan of politically incorrect humour

All through this skit he employs subtle humour that is relevant to Thailand and Japan taking the micky out of both nations people and culture and culminates in a slight at Vietnam, while drawing on a typically Thai prejudice and (often unwarranted)Thai nationalistic pride.

the thing about humour is if it is "in your face" you will either like it or hate it , if it is subtle you will like it , it maybe straight away , it might take a week for you to get it , or 20 years later you will suddenly get it and burst laughing at a joke you heard and everyone around you will think you a fool if you try and explain it

this is what happens when you let the woman wear the pants

grow a pair.

first thing you should have done was get in a new woman when this one stopped doing stuff. tell her the new one was going to do anything she didn't

yeah there would have been some yelling and screaming, but don't let that bother you she would be the one doing it.

then you would have had good excuse for not giving her money, it was going to the new woman that was picking up the slack.

she would either of got her fat arse with the program or left of her own accord, either way your problem was solved.

now all you can do is stuff the curtain rods in her room with prawns (shrimp), she will leave in about 2 weeks

this seems about as true as the "I hate Thailand" video

can thaivisa or that coconut be sued for spreading lies with monitary gains as goal ?

yes.

although I would guess TVF's lawyers would argue that they were just reprinting another source and would no reason to know that a "reputable" news outlet like coconuts was printing anything but the truth

Quite right, and I'm sure that is exactly what TVF would do.

It's futile, though. Under Thai law (and pretty well all defamation laws, everywhere), repeating the defamation is EXACTLY the same as uttering it first. Just yesterday, the court sentenced the quite well-known TV host Woody to a year (suspended) because he repeated a defamatory statement. He did indeed try on the "I'm a journalist and I was only repeating" and the judge nearly fell over and hurt himself quite seriously, he was laughing so hard.

That said, Thaivisa and all other jackal/vulture media aren't going to be sued or even intimidated over this particular case.

.

difference would be that TVF post the story as a reprint of the original, and quote the source ie. TVF says that coconuts says ....

therefore TVF is reporting fact because coconuts did in fact say that

Where are the members now, who, in their wisdom and without facts, were adamant that this occurred, so much so that they howled down, criticised and denigrated others without accepting that those others had different points of view. Even when evidence came to light that the storey was a fabrication, some just would not let go nor accept that they were wrong and kept on and with their churlish chides, regardless of how foolish they continued to look.

What is it with some, just because someone has a different outlook, they apparently need to have some wise man explain to them the reasons for them being wrong. It appears that unless you think with the pack, then whatever you post is scoffed at because you dare to think differently. Now, if you do, then they will attack you and if you dare to challenge back, watch out because this is when the name calling starts, the post is rubbished, because it is meaningless and the so called expert alleges it is unintelligible, and from then on the attacks become relentless. I think some try to solicit angry responses and when unable to, the remarks passed become more intense and highly derogatory.

Maybe some of the posters, who were adamant as to the factualness of the incident and then carried on the way they did, should have a long hard look at themselves and then before coming to and posting such unproven and fallacious statements they should engage their brain before opening their mouths. Now with the police threatening legal action, it would be appropriate for a few to beware of the knock on the door. One never knows and it would be nice to see a few taught a lesson. But so be it in a day on TVF but at least I know who had the last laugh, and no I won't gloat over it.

Without the story of the actual tourists, your post holds no validity.

actually it does if anything more so

to avoid charges of defamation you need to prove what you publish is factual.

if the only evidence that the story was factual and the family were dumped by a taxi (despite a van driver having said they were in his van) is the testimony of the family and they choose not not to say anything then the story has to be considered false.

in short-:

no proof that it happened then it is just a rumour

can thaivisa or that coconut be sued for spreading lies with monitary gains as goal ?

yes.

although I would guess TVF's lawyers would argue that they were just reprinting another source and would no reason to know that a "reputable" news outlet like coconuts was printing anything but the truth

Who in their right mind gets dropped off on a toll way?

Even if its at a booth.

assuming anyone has a "right mind" is a gross error of judgement on your part

Please, please read the thread before posting!!

The number of posters here flying blind is unbelievable.................

only unbelievable if this is your first visit to TVF

If u don't respect the law and step over the line u get clipped. Maybe this analogy explains it better than the fire analogy I used. Simple enough?

no you are still defaming him , breaking the law both criminal and civil , by your own admission you should spend the next 10 years of your life in a Thai jail and pay a princely sum to mark and have the sh1t beaten out of you by anyone that feels like it

Mark did not step over any line, he respected the law, was filming an assault to see that the offenders were properly prosecuted, he was then turned on and illegally assaulted, attempted to decamp the scene and avoid an altercation, was pursued by several would be attackers, was clearly in fear of his life or serious injury, defended himself and in so doing one of the attackers died.

Not sure about Thailand but in most western countries if someone ends up dead as a result of you undertaking illegal activity, either alone or in company, then you are guilty of murder, so the 4 other accomplices are the ones that would be charged with murder.

Play with fire u get burnt. He got burnt. Pure and simple.

So you are defaming him, which in Thailand is not only a civil charge but a criminal one as well, so you are "playing with fire" so you should be run through the courts, spend 10 years in a Thai jail and lose all your worldly possessions to Mark ?

apart from the fact you are insulting a very popular, caring, respectable man with a lot of friends who would like to kick the living sh1t out of you, so you should cop that too and smile because you "played with fire" ?

just asking

because

you know

you think it is fine for him.

Sorry, I'm German and my language skills are not on the point. Why there is danger after lunch?

Fatfather

because it is an Indian lunch

Sounds to me like self defense. He will walk. This will teach bouncers a lesson for the future.

Thats bullsuger mate, he killed a person. HE KILLED A PERSON, wether or not you people class Thai people as persons, I am sorry, I do. My wife is Thai, my sister in laws are thai, and my brother in law, and inlaws are, Thai. Dont you understand????? He didnt kill a Thai. He killed a brother, an uncle, a son, a friend, a PERSON!!!!!!! and he had no right to take that life.....Not at all.

You might want to check the video, he defended himself from an unjustified attack that was life threatening.

as for killing a brother/son/uncle/friend/person no you are wrong here, he killed a viscous member of a pack of men intent on chasing him down and inflicting harm, the amount of force he was defending himself against was lethal, so he defended himself and killed an intending murderer

you are sadly misguided if you think anyone should accept death rather then fight for life

Thai men really hate us especially the ones that hang and work in night clubs ,they are just itching to beat the shit out of a Farang and love to do it in packs. Six guys attack a 65 year old ,no wonder he defended himself but now he is out on bail he should be watching his back as the cowards they are might return for payback. I really think this guy did not intend to kill someone he has been here too long ,looks like just bad luck for the coward 25 year old and his five other shit kicker mates. Hope the guy gets off on self defence.

I have not found any Thai men that hate me , must be my natural charming personality , maybe you should read a book on how not to be hated , something like "How to Win Friends and Influence People" might help or if you think you need more then a good book to learn there are plenty of psychologists that could perhaps help you

That is what you get for carrying a knife and waving it instead of legging it.

and you know he did not try to "leg it" because you are a well informed well researched expert? maybe you should look at the footage linked below before people make hasty decisions about your character

Any CCTV camera around catching the episode ? Hope they are not pointed to the opposite direction or with low resolution

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hn6TsoSx2g&feature=youtu.be

he is the large guy crossing the road around the 30 sec mark from left to right

Bail when charged with murder? Amazing Thailand!

Unless I'm missing something here, the Thai security guard had no legal right to tell anyone to do anything, including to stop filming, while out on the sidewalk or public street in front of the club. That's public property, not the same as private property inside the club.

If the guard started a confrontation with Pendlebury over that, then he was in the wrong. And if the guard further escalated that to a physical assault on Pendlebury after he refused to stop filming, then he was even more in the wrong.

The question is... why was Pendlebury so quickly charged with murder when there's certainly at least the appearance of a valid self-defense claim here???

self defence is a defence against charges in most places, so although he will most likely be found not guilty by reason of self defence there is no doubt a man is dead and that he killed him.

Yep, hope he gets everything he deserves. Might also shut up a few of the knuckle heads on TV who constantly crow about their "rights" to carry weapons in this country especially the multitude that are proud to tell everyone they carry knives on their person in their vehicles and wherever else for "protection". Weapon carried by cowards pure and simple.

Spoken by someone who has no concept of the actual realities of life.

Spoken by someone who has zero idea of where I have been or what I have done. Like you do later I could provide a menu of martial arts I have done but I don't feel the need to blow my own trumpet. The first rule of any decent self defence is extricating yourself from trouble. Intelligent people avoid trouble and do their best to remove themselves from situations where they may occur (read being drunk in bar areas in the early hours of the morning) Ignoring the fact the this was a near 60 year old man on the piss in the early hours of the morning carrying a concealed weapon. In my experience two types of people carry weapons. Those that wish to feel tougher or bigger to replace other shortcomings in their anantomy or those that have the intent to use them. The former generally get them taken off them and used against them the latter eventually cause serious injury or as in this case kill someone. I have never felt the need to carry a weapon on me anywhere in the world and won't even though I am proficient in their use. Not sure what country your from but there are few countries in the world where getting punched in the head (whether you instigated the fight or not) entitles you to use lethal force certainly not in Australia where I am from and I am pretty sure not here.

Actually in Australia being hit in the head and attacked by several people, where you believed on reasonable grounds that it was necessary to use deadly force to defend yourself or others, it is permitted

I see many calls to remove the nuts from the boy , rather stupid, counterproductive and small, narrow minded response, the boy is only 15, he has just found out that it is not just for pissing out of , what this young lad needs is serious help and sooner he gets it the better females around him will be , there are specialist organisations within the health department that are there to help, what you don't want is just a penalty without any effort to rehabilitate the lad.

Sometimes, naivete is endearing, sometimes it is dangerous. Yours is the dangerous sort.

I am certain that he has known for quite some time that his penis is not just for pissing out of.

He groomed her. He'd been planning it for weeks, if not months.

I don't know if his temple stay had significance or not, and it may be beside the point.

What is plain is that he committed pre-meditated rape, and what is likely is that he knew it was wrong.

why are you so sure ?

Are you aware of the average age of puberty in Thai boys brought up in villages ?

Do you know him personally ?

How have you determined "grooming" from this article ?

This article does not claim that rape has been committed nor even alleged, the alleged charge is statutory rape, or in simple language sex with a child, the same charge would apply if the boy was 5 years old although then both the boy and girl could be charged.

Although it is clear in your mind what happened legal systems tend to require proof and not " because some guy on a forum said so" before a conviction

Ang Thong police superintendent Colonel Chutrakool Yosmadee said he would review the report from social workers before drawing a conclusion on charging and prosecuting the boy.

What the hell does a social worker have to do with charging someone who rapes an eight year old child? The charges or lack thereof will probably rely on the usual money factor.

typical US attitude -> shoot first, think later (or never). your Avator shows.....

Now, now my friend let's not be rude. I take it from your curse response to my post that English is not your first language but that's ok. I took one year of Spanish in school but I still have problems understanding the intent of some statements made in Spanish.

Please refer to my post #19 for a clarification of my statement. In case you decide not to do that, here is the meaning of my statement.

Raping an eight year old girl is a crime. Raping an eight year old girl is never not a crime. It is not in the realm of a social worker's responsibility to say if a rapist should be charged for the crime or not. It is in the realm of the social worker's responsibility to help point out the circumstances leading up to the rape and give suggestions how to prevent the same thing happening in the future.

You have also misinterpreted my Avatar but that is ok also. One of my hobbies is collecting guns. I have an extensive collection dating back to the US civil war era. The S&W 357 magnum in the Avatar is the same as the one I have which by the way has never been fired.

Hopefully this will clear things up for you.

You seem to be confused with the crime alleged here it is not rape it is statutory rape this used to be called carnal knowledge in most western countries.

obviously his first language is English and sadly the shoot first, think later is the attitude portrayed by the US in general.

Even your posts suggest a lack of thought or knowledge. A social worker is far more appropriate person to interview children then a police officer and the police forces in Australia employ such people for just such purposes.

Even this poorly written article suggests the only evidence so far is hearsay and an inconclusive medical report, if a crime has been commited and if there is hope of prosecution then the children's and the social workers testimonies are going to be pivotal in that court case.

As for misinterpreting your avatar... it is a gun, a revolver, a large calibre, designed to take a large charge , it is designed primarily to kill people, although it can also be used for shooting bears it's primary design was in fact to provide "stopping power". as for the rest of your human killing collection, even you use the civil war as a reference to time rather then using the world wide accepted method of stating a year of the oldest weapon in your collection.

Don't get me wrong I like guns too, as you can see from my avatar but I am not seriously suggesting using a machine gun will open an image that has otherwise failed to open or that a gun is designed for that purpose.

The original post which quotes no source or author says that a father says that a teacher says that a girl says that she doesn't feel well because she was playing a game with her cousin before school and her genitals got hurt.

and the general consensus here is that we should wait another year for the boys testicles to drop so we can cut them off .

do you people ever ask questions about the information you are given?

if not PM me I have several bridges for sale at discounted prices, also I know a Nigerian prince that needs help getting money out of his country, and several contacts apparently from the FBI and CIA that want to get large sums of money they found out of the USA (at least that is what the emails say)