42 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Drunk and or high on drugs, speeding far beyond the limit for the location of the crash, didn't stop and fled the scene, later fled the country and has never answered legal summons... And yes, he was charged with speeding or whatever causing death.

 

You certainly sound like an apologist for him, whether or not you like it or agree/disagree with it... and he's the last person in the world who deserves it.

 

"Drunk and or high on drugs, speeding far beyond the limit for the location of the crash, didn't stop and fled the scene, later fled the country and has never answered legal summons... And yes, he was charged with speeding or whatever causing death".

Can't argue with that but then I never was disputing what happened.

 

"You certainly sound like an apologist for him, whether or not you like it or agree/disagree with it... and he's the last person in the world who deserves it".

So...?

7 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

"Drunk and or high on drugs, speeding far beyond the limit for the location of the crash, didn't stop and fled the scene, later fled the country and has never answered legal summons... And yes, he was charged with speeding or whatever causing death".

Can't argue with that but then I never was disputing what happened.

 

"You certainly sound like an apologist for him, whether or not you like it or agree/disagree with it... and he's the last person in the world who deserves it".

So...?

No, you're just apologising for him.

 

How's the case with Prawit by the way? How much longer should people still deem him innocent? "It can be easily explained"........

15 minutes ago, rkidlad said:

No, you're just apologising for him.

 

How's the case with Prawit by the way? 

No, you're just apologising for him.

Certainly aren't.  That's just how you choose to see it.

 

"How's the case with Prawit by the way?"

He submitted his explanation within the required time scale, didn't he, so perhaps you should ask the NACC.

 

 

1 minute ago, Just Weird said:

No, you're just apologising for him.

Certainly aren't.  That's just how you choose to see it.

 

"How's the case with Prawit by the way?"

He submitted his explanation within the required time scale, didn't he, so perhaps you should ask the NACC.

 

 

No, he didn’t. And I was asking you. 

2 minutes ago, rkidlad said:

No, he didn’t. And I was asking you. 

Yes, he did. 

 

I know you were asking me but why?  Didn't you read it yourself?  Can't you keep up?

 

I do know what the committee said after receiving his explanation because I read about it when it was reported in the media but I'm not going to tell you because you're a deliberately antagonistic, awkward so-and-so, so you can research it for yourself.  Try the Bangkok Post.

On 3/17/2018 at 11:13 PM, Thechook said:

So nothing to do with corruption and the incompetence of the Thai Police, it's those dam farangs at Interpol. 

Interpol Thailand is all Thai.... 

2 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

Yes, he did. 

 

I know you were asking me but why?  Didn't you read it yourself?  Can't you keep up?

 

I do know what the committee said after receiving his explanation because I read about it when it was reported in the media but I'm not going to tell you because you're a deliberately antagonistic, awkward so-and-so, so you can research it for yourself.  Try the Bangkok Post.

Desperate times when you have to blatantly lie.

 

I’m here to have a conversation with people. Not to appear to be right by lying. That’s really sad. 

 

I have the read the Bangkok Post. I’ve read your comments on there too. You enjoy collecting thumbs down? 

8 hours ago, Just Weird said:

I make no apologies for anyone and you can think what you like about me (I'm sure you can imagine how much that bothers me) but in this case you'd be wrong, of course, but that's part of what a forum is about and it doesn't make you right or my views wrong.

Yes it does.... your comments are twisted

8 hours ago, Just Weird said:

I make no apologies for anyone and you can think what you like about me (I'm sure you can imagine how much that bothers me) but in this case you'd be wrong, of course, but that's part of what a forum is about and it doesn't make you right or my views wrong.

Would you make the same comments to the family of the man who was killed? Face to face? I seriously doubt that.

On 3/19/2018 at 2:28 AM, tryasimight said:

Why bring the Dutch into it? 

they bring anybody into it as long as it looks like they are trying to catch him

20 hours ago, rkidlad said:

Desperate times when you have to blatantly lie.

Point out the "blatant lie".

 

13 hours ago, stephen tracy said:

Would you make the same comments to the family of the man who was killed? Face to face? I seriously doubt that.

Do you mean the ones who were happy to accept millions in compensation?  Whether I would or not is as relevant as asking you whether you would make every comment that you post here to the target's face, i.e. irrelevant.

Just now, Just Weird said:

Do you mean the ones who were happy to accept millions in compensation?  Whether I would or not is as relevant as asking you whether you would make every comment that you post here to the target's face, i.e. irrelevant.

They were happy taking the millions? Can you supply us with evidence of this or is this another lie to appear to be right? 

 

Remember, you are a person who loves semantics. So they have to have said the words they are happy. No inferences or hearsay. Or can we find the link easily online like every other false reference you talk about?

9 minutes ago, rkidlad said:

They were happy taking the millions? Can you supply us with evidence of this or is this another lie to appear to be right? 

 

Remember, you are a person who loves semantics. So they have to have said the words they are happy. No inferences or hearsay. Or can we find the link easily online like every other false reference you talk about?

If they weren't happy, you'd have heard about it by now considering all the flack Vorayuth's getting.

 

It's clear from most posts that you make that you are incapable of the finding links that you demand for everything so if you search and don't find the information you need it doesn't really mean anything. 

 

It's odd that you seem to be the only one (there is probably another but I can't think of anyone else specifically) who reckons my references are false and require links every time.

1 minute ago, Just Weird said:

If they weren't happy, you'd have heard about it by now considering all the flack Vorayuth's getting.

 

It's clear from most posts that you make that you are incapable of the finding links that you demand for everything so if you search and don't find the information you need it doesn't really mean anything. 

 

It's odd that you seem to be the only one (there is probably another but I can't think of anyone else specifically) who reckons my references are false and require links every time.

If they weren’t happy, we’d have heard about it? That’s an assumption, Just Weird. Remember, you don’t deal in assumptions. You chastise other members for doing that. 

 

You wouldn’t go against your nauseating principles by assuming, would you? 

On ‎3‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 8:33 AM, Just Weird said:

Yes, they are and, yes, you got it wrong again. 

 

He's is not a "cop killer".  An officer died in an accident that he was involved in and if you want to label him a cop killer then you must also label every single person considered to blame in a fatal traffic accident as killers also, and make as much noise about it.  No chance of you doing that.

 

The bandwagon is the bandwagon of Thaivisa posters indignantly demanding all sorts of strange arrest methods that carry no weight in real law like "get him at an F1 race", "put a bounty on his head", "offer a reward for him dead or alive", etc and also furiously asserting that he should have been jailed years ago for a crime that he has not even appeared in court for, never mind been found guilty of!  You call that justice?  B ollocks.

Actually, I believe this post and some of your other posts to be disgraceful. He is not wanted for a mere traffic violation. He killed another human driving at high speed whilst under the influence. And let us not forget the cover up attempt in which the butler or the garderner would take the blame.

 

The only reason he has yet to see the inside of the court is because he decided to flee the country. 

 

It is no surprise people want to hang him high. 

1 hour ago, sjaak327 said:

Actually, I believe this post and some of your other posts to be disgraceful. He is not wanted for a mere traffic violation. He killed another human driving at high speed whilst under the influence. And let us not forget the cover up attempt in which the butler or the garderner would take the blame.

 

The only reason he has yet to see the inside of the court is because he decided to flee the country. 

 

It is no surprise people want to hang him high. 

Actually, I don't care what your opinion of my opinion is, it's of no significance to anyone but you.

 

And let us not forget also(!) that I did not say that he was wanted for a "mere" traffic violation, "mere" is your word.   I said he had been charged with traffic offences which is 100% accurate.

 

If you bother to read what I was responding to originally it was some genius who suggested that all his assets and those of his family were seized.  That is not only ridiculous but it also cannot happen for traffic offence of reckless driving causing death.

 

"It is no surprise people want to hang him high". 

Well, it is no surprise that the vigilante Thaivisa gang who are not affected in any way want to hang him high, that's for sure.  Some people just want to see a court case first and for him to get whatever punishment is seen fit by the judge. 

1 hour ago, rkidlad said:

If they weren’t happy, we’d have heard about it? That’s an assumption, Just Weird. Remember, you don’t deal in assumptions. You chastise other members for doing that. 

 

You wouldn’t go against your nauseating principles by assuming, would you? 

I would when it's a fairly safe assumption that if they weren't happy they'd bring it up, particularly as at a time when there is so much venom being spat around they'd probably get a lot of sympathy.  Nothing from them though. 

1 minute ago, Just Weird said:

I would when it's a fairly safe assumption that if they weren't happy they'd bring it up, particularly as at a time when there is so much venom being spat around they'd probably get a lot of sympathy.  Nothing from them though. 

Again, that’s an assumption. You have no idea what’s going on behind the scenes. I’d say their silence is deafening. 

 

And next time you chastise someone on here for making an assumption, I’ll be there to share a link to this conversation. 

 

 

23 hours ago, rkidlad said:

Desperate times when you have to blatantly lie.

Have you come up with a "blatant lie" yet?  Didn't think so.

Just now, Just Weird said:

Have you come up with a "blatant lie" yet?  Didn't think so.

Aw, come on, Just Weird. Got nothing else in your locker? 

 

Here’s a link for you;

 

 

 

Just now, rkidlad said:

Again, that’s an assumption. You have no idea what’s going on behind the scenes. I’d say their silence is deafening. 

 

And next time you chastise someone on here for making an assumption, I’ll be there to share a link to this conversation. 

When you do, don't get "assumption" confused with "wild speculation".  Monitoring my posts must be very therapeutic for you judging by how conscientiously you do it, hope you're enjoying yourself.  Yes, that's an assumption, too.

4 minutes ago, rkidlad said:

Aw, come on, Just Weird. Got nothing else in your locker? 

 

Here’s a link for you;

 

 

 

 A link that shows what "blatant lie" of mine?   

Edited March 20, 20188 yr by Just Weird

1 minute ago, Just Weird said:

 A link that shows what "blatant lie" of mine?   

Yes. It shows your blatant lie. Read the article and read your previous posts. 

20 minutes ago, rkidlad said:

Yes. It shows your blatant lie. Read the article and read your previous posts. 

Why so cryptic?  Are you referring to this..."NACC secretary-general Worawit Sooksombon said on Tuesday that the panel had received a 38-page letter, which explains all the 25 watches..."?

 

There's nothing else in that link that you could have misinterpreted as a "blatant lie" of mine.    If you can specify the "blatant lie", let's see it; if you can't, give it a rest, eh?

39 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

Actually, I don't care what your opinion of my opinion is, it's of no significance to anyone but you.

 

And let us not forget also(!) that I did not say that he was wanted for a "mere" traffic violation, "mere" is your word.   I said he had been charged with traffic offences which is 100% accurate.

 

If you bother to read what I was responding to originally it was some genius who suggested that all his assets and those of his family were seized.  That is not only ridiculous but it also cannot happen for traffic offence of reckless driving causing death.

 

"It is no surprise people want to hang him high". 

Well, it is no surprise that the vigilante Thaivisa gang who are not affected in any way want to hang him high, that's for sure.  Some people just want to see a court case first and for him to get whatever punishment is seen fit by the judge. 

I believe what you said was, "Geez...he's wanted for traffic offences!" Most normal people would assume this to mean he was speeding or using his mobile while driving, etc. But of course you won't be able to see how you're being misleading.

 

Job interviewer: "So do you have any criminal records?"

 

Interviewee: "Yea, I ran over and killed a police officer and dragged him along the street in my car. I also went through a red one time"

 

Job interviewer "Geez....they're traffic offences! I mean have you any criminal records for assault or theft, etc?"

 

 

Just now, Just Weird said:

Do you mean the ones who were happy to accept millions in compensation?  Whether I would or not is as relevant as asking you whether you would make every comment that you post here to the target's face, i.e. irrelevant.

Yes I would. Gladly.

8 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

Why so cryptic?  Are you referring to this..."NACC secretary-general Worawit Sooksombon said on Tuesday that the panel had received a 38-page letter, which explains all the 25 watches..."?

 

There's nothing else in that link that you could have misinterpreted as a "blatant lie" of mine.    If you can specify the "blatant lie", let's see it; if you can't, give it a rest, eh?

Sorry, when did you originally say the report was submitted? If it was on Tuesday, I must have misinterpreted your 'blatant lie'. If not, give it a rest, eh?

Just now, Just Weird said:

Why so cryptic?  Are you referring to this..."NACC secretary-general Worawit Sooksombon said on Tuesday that the panel had received a 38-page letter, which explains all the 25 watches..."?

 

There's nothing else in that link that you could have misinterpreted as a "blatant lie" of mine.    If you can specify the "blatant lie", let's see it; if you can't, give it a rest, eh?

You really are Just Weird

2 minutes ago, rkidlad said:

I believe what you said was, "Geez...he's wanted for traffic offences!" Most normal people would assume this to mean he was speeding or using his mobile while driving, etc. But of course you won't be able to see how you're being misleading.

 

Job interviewer: "So do you have any criminal records?"

 

Interviewee: "Yea, I ran over and killed a police officer and dragged him along the street in my car. I also went through a red one time"

 

Job interviewer "Geez....they're traffic offences! I mean have you any criminal records for assault or theft, etc?"

Geez...why don't you use the phrase that I used in context? 

 

I was responding originally to a poster who asked why all his assets and those of his family had not been seized, or words to that effect (I'm sure you've got the  record of my exact words).  My response was that asset seizure was not an option for someone accused of traffic offences, even traffic offences in which someone died, which are the offences that he has been charged with...traffic offences!