3 hours ago, farcanell said:

Lmao... no way are you that naive!

 

in reports were the often sited “brake failure” is used.... there is never any comment about police not believing the story.... example of blind acceptance of statements abound. Wether this is because they are blindly accepted, or simply not commented on, I cannot say... but the example remains.

 

and the blame game... as in blame someone else... is a reoccurring theme in these pages....., so ..... what we naturally expect, is that the driver of the wreck blames someone else.... BINGO, 

You're right, I'm not naïve.  What has not believing a 'brake failure' story got to do with this woman who made no such claim?

 

Perhaps you shouldn't expect quite so much and instead go on what was actually reported.

3 hours ago, farcanell said:

“yer right.....” etc etc.... is my very first line. Above that is a quotation from the OP link ( not my line)..... and no, I have not attended the scene, interviewed witnesses, examined the roadway or taken paint scrapings from the wrecked car to confirm her highly creditable story. It’s a layman’s observation based almost entirely on watching CSI reruns ( with a little actual experience of crashing cars.... bad boy that I am) and a little reading

 

regards having a sense of humor..... well.... dude, you gotta have a sense of humor.... especially when reading about Thai justifications for an accident.

 

This isn’t nessesarily thai bashing.... I would have said the same, regardless of who or what was driving the wreck. It’s bullshitter bashing, if you actually need to put a name to it.

"This isn’t nessesarily thai bashing...It’s bullshitter bashing...".

'Bullshitting' that has not been proven, you have no way of knowing that the woman was bullshitting.

 

"regards having a sense of humor..... well.... dude, you gotta have a sense of humor...."

You need to address that to Ivr181, he brought that up, not me.

 

"I have not attended the scene..."

Obviously, one of my points.

2 hours ago, lvr181 said:

Sheesh - look at the picture of the rear of her car! Get any clues from that?

No, I didn't, I'm not looking for them and neither should you be if you want to make judgements about her accident that aren't laughable.

32 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

You're right, I'm not naïve.  What has not believing a 'brake failure' story got to do with this woman who made no such claim?

 

Perhaps you shouldn't expect quite so much and instead go on what was actually reported.

My goodness weird.... no no no.

 

In context, it has little to do with the actual  claim made, but more about what claims the police believe (which is what you bought up).... in using an example, I can’t use this incident, as I’m making a parrel example.

 

and you may not have realized this yet, but if you remove speculation from this forum (and indeed, a good percentages of general conversation anywhere) there wouldn’t be much point reading any comments.... and the world would be a duller place.

 

anyway.... my speculation, whilst being only speculation, is backed up by logic, and worth considering

 

if my writing style is confusing for you.... I apologies wholeheartedly... but that doesn’t make me wrong (or right, if you like, hence discussing enlightens and educates, which is the end goal)

 

 

32 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

regards having a sense of humor..... well.... dude, you gotta have a sense of humor...."

You need to address that to Ivr181, he brought that up, not me.

Indeed he did.... he suggested you need to develop one.

 

and I agree... you gotta have a sense of humor, per my comment... I know... confusing writing style... my bad

24 minutes ago, farcanell said:

Indeed he did.... he suggested you need to develop one.

 

and I agree... you gotta have a sense of humor, per my comment... I know... confusing writing style... my bad

I don't need to do that, I have a very good sense of humour already but regrettably there's not a lot to laugh about on this forum apart from when the comments descend into banality (not meaning you). 

 

The point is that none of the posters making the derogatory comments about the woman's honesty were cracking jokes about it, they were making serious, unambiguous comments about the incident.   They may well turn out to be correct but not so far.  The sense of humour bit only rears it's ugly head when they have been called out on it.

33 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

I don't need to do that, I have a very good sense of humour already but regrettably there's not a lot to laugh about on this forum apart from when the comments descend into banality (not meaning you). 

 

The point is that none of the posters making the derogatory comments about the woman's honesty were cracking jokes about it, they were making serious, unambiguous comments about the incident.   They may well turn out to be correct but not so far.  The sense of humour bit only rears it's ugly head when they have been called out on it.

??? im pretty sure I wasn’t making outrightly derogatory statements, but I certainly question her honesty (and I have outlined why).... and try to inject humor when I can. Different strokes for different folks

1 hour ago, Just Weird said:

 

 

I'm defending her because at this stage none of the mocking and cynical accusations from posters like you have been shown to have any credibility.  What if she was a relative, what difference would that make to an objective view of this thread?

 

She made no assertions that the sun was in her eyes, that the road was narrow or wet or that her brakes failed, what are you talking about?  It seems that the crusade is yours, not mine.

 

I'm going along with the only evidence that has been reported, you're one of those speculating wildly, so far.

 

"until someone crashes into you, THEN it will be your fault.!"

Can explain what that nonsense means?

 

JW, I do not think you are reading what is said and you're just concocting statements to suit your fallible view about the crash. For goodness sake man, looking at the photo of the crash how could anyone believe that the woman was hit by another vehicle thus causing the crash (and the amount of damage), as she has claimed! So, please, put up (your incontrovertible evidence) or shut up. 

 

 

6 hours ago, lvr181 said:

 

JW, I do not think you are reading what is said and you're just concocting statements to suit your fallible view about the crash. For goodness sake man, looking at the photo of the crash how could anyone believe that the woman was hit by another vehicle thus causing the crash (and the amount of damage), as she has claimed! So, please, put up (your incontrovertible evidence) or shut up. 

You are the one who is making un-evidenced statements about this woman to suit your imagination about whatever happened, not me.  I am going on what has been reported so far, not on what you want to see in photos of the aftermath.  So, please, put up your incontrovertible evidence or put a sock in it.