Jump to content

Pattaya Bar Worker Allegedly Kidnapped by Group of Men


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

It was not reported that she "could not recall the detail" of the earlier incident, she said that she did not know the full details.

 

7 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

It was not reported that she "could not recall the detail" of the earlier incident, she said that she did not know the full details.

Then recall what you know if you wish to assist in knowing what has happened to the missing woman .

Smething to hide maybe sad man

Edited by itsari
Needs more information
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Celsius said:

Sounds like quality Chinese operation 

Sounds like you didn't read the article...it's pretty certain that the security guard who spoke to the men would know if they weren't Thais.

  • Confused 2
  • Sad 1
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, itsari said:
8 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

It was not reported that she "could not recall the detail" of the earlier incident, she said that she did not know the full details.

Then recall what you know if you wish to assist in knowing what has happened to the missing woman .

Gawd...

Perhaps she did tell them what she knew, she did not say she could not recall!

Edited by Liverpool Lou
  • Confused 2
  • Sad 1
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Gawd...

Perhaps she did tell them what she knew, she did not say she could not recall!

Make your mind up Mr

Much sadness protruding from you

Edited by itsari
More information
  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Posted
Just now, itsari said:
3 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Gawd...

Perhaps she did tell them what she knew, she did not say she could not recall!

Make your mind up Mr

I haven't changed my mind but you may need to check the distinction between the words "recall" and "know".   

She said that she "did not know " the details.  It was not reported that she "could not recall" the details.  Mr.

  • Like 1
Posted
5 hours ago, Shop mak said:

Money lenders at work again, or a ex-bf? 

 

two days prior to the incident, an individual had been enquiring about the bar worker at their workplace. However, she could not recall the specifics of that interaction. Worasuda suspects that the abductor could possibly be the bar worker’s ex-husband

Hm,...If it is her ex the police will find him quiet easily !

Posted
2 hours ago, PJ71 said:

Just a normal Wednesday morning then - lol.

 

She was tidy.... kinda wish I was one of the pissed up guys in the back rather than the sober moron engaging in the daily work grind.

  • Haha 1
Posted
3 hours ago, wensiensheng said:

How can she not recall the detail of a weird incident that happened only two days ago? It would be understandable if she didn’t know then or now, but if she knew then, surely she can recall now. Unless she doesn’t want further involved so she invoked the trump family strategy.

 

Could contain:

  • Confused 1
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Ralf001 said:

 

Driving to work last Wednesday, stopped at my local 7/11 to buy a chocolate milk for the drive.

 

Pickup parked out front with 5 pissed up Thai guys in the back, instore girl at counter before me buys 4 packs of condoms and 2 tubes of KY.... then gets into passenger seat of the pickup !!

 

You just witnessed what you are missing out on with this morning chocolate milk thing.

Edited by NanLaew
Posted
1 hour ago, ChaiyaTH said:

I been to restaurants where the waitress ask me my name and where I come from 3 days in a row. Not surprised at all.

What's it like being nondescript and otherwise unremarkable?

  • Sad 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

bab

 

You just witnessed what you are missing out on with this morning chocolate milk thing.

 

Weekdays, my work says I cannot partake.

Posted
2 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

"...has to do with somebody owing money".

How do you know that?   There was no mention of anything like that in the OP.

He can read between the lines.

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

It was not reported that she "could not recall the detail" of the earlier incident, she said that she did not know the full details.

Not sure what article you read....
In the article that was linked, it said, "Worasuda also revealed that two days before the incident, an individual had been enquiring about the bar worker at their workplace. However, she could not recall the specifics of that interaction." (emphasis added)
As you were... go ahead and get back to correcting everyone's comments....
Edit: And I subsequently saw following posts where you doubled down or should I say tripled down (were there more?) adamantly certain that it wasn't recalling that was the difficulty. It was knowing?? Before being so vigorous in defending yourself or wantonly throwing  criticism about, you may want to double check the point your are going on about. But, that's up to you. Carry on.

Edited by Sig
  • Sad 1
Posted
9 hours ago, wensiensheng said:

“A city known for its vibrant nightlife”

 

is that a new descriptor for sleaze?

 

Can you think of a different definition?

 

Isn't all vibrant nightlife sleaze?

  • Confused 1
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Sig said:

Not sure what article you read....
In the article that was linked, it said, "Worasuda also revealed that two days before the incident, an individual had been enquiring about the bar worker at their workplace. However, she could not recall the specifics of that interaction." (emphasis added)
As you were... go ahead and get back to correcting everyone's comments....
Edit: And I subsequently saw following posts where you doubled down or should I say tripled down (were there more?) adamantly certain that it wasn't recalling that was the difficulty. It was knowing?? Before being so vigorous in defending yourself or wantonly throwing  criticism about, you may want to double check the point your are going on about. But, that's up to you. Carry on.

Watch it Bud.  Lou sees all, hears all, knows all!  You must not contradict his posts!  That might be in the rules he likes to tell people to read!  :laugh:

P.S. Lou's vast repository of knowledge, is ... omnipotent, but not necessarily benevolent!   Remember that!   

Edited by radiochaser
  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
14 hours ago, Hanuman2547 said:

Lots of different possibilities.  Most likely some type of money/drug debt or a jilted former BF/husband back to reclaim his "true love".

Or, maybe she knows something she shouldn't, and talk to much, 

Crime in Pattaya is getting worse, the whole country now has school children smoking gunga in the toilets, wait until Casino's come, then the real fireworks and mafia will rise. 

Posted
18 hours ago, wensiensheng said:

“A city known for its vibrant nightlife”

 

is that a new descriptor for sleaze?

No, it´s a description for vibrant nightlife.
 

18 hours ago, Iron Tongue said:

Whatever happened, it was not random and has to do with somebody owing money.

 

 

How do you no that? are you the kidnapper?

Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Sig said:

Not sure what article you read....
In the article that was linked, it said, "Worasuda also revealed that two days before the incident, an individual had been enquiring about the bar worker at their workplace. However, she could not recall the specifics of that interaction." (emphasis added)
As you were... go ahead and get back to correcting everyone's comments....
Edit: And I subsequently saw following posts where you doubled down or should I say tripled down (were there more?) adamantly certain that it wasn't recalling that was the difficulty. It was knowing?? Before being so vigorous in defending yourself or wantonly throwing  criticism about, you may want to double check the point your are going on about. But, that's up to you. Carry on.

There was good reason for my doubling down; in the link to the original OP the following is what was reported...

"They forcibly took her into a black sedan and drove away. Ms. Worasuda mentioned that two days ago, someone had come to her workplace to inquire about the abductee, but she was unsure about the exact details. Ms. Worasuda suspected that the abductor might be the victim’s ex-husband".

No mention there about the phrase "she could not recall the specifics...", regardless of your emphasis of something that wasn't reported in that link.

To use your words...before being so vigorous in attacking me or wantonly throwing  criticism about, you may want to double check the point you are going on about. But, that's up to you. Carry on.

Edited by Liverpool Lou
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Posted
On 11/11/2023 at 3:57 AM, Shop mak said:

Money lenders at work again, or a ex-bf? 

 

two days prior to the incident, an individual had been enquiring about the bar worker at their workplace. However, she could not recall the specifics of that interaction. Worasuda suspects that the abductor could possibly be the bar worker’s ex-husband

Thanks for the information.

Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

There was good reason for my doubling down; in the link to the original OP the following is what was reported...

"They forcibly took her into a black sedan and drove away. Ms. Worasuda mentioned that two days ago, someone had come to her workplace to inquire about the abductee, but she was unsure about the exact details. Ms. Worasuda suspected that the abductor might be the victim’s ex-husband".

No mention there about the phrase "she could not recall the specifics...", regardless of your emphasis of something that wasn't reported in that link.

To use your words...before being so vigorous in attacking me or wantonly throwing  criticism about, you may want to double check the point you are going on about. But, that's up to you. Carry on.

Ok, so you're going to feign as though you only read the first of the two linked articles and try saying you were only referring to that one and didn't know that the other article gave information contrary to what you wrote? And even that first article doesn't line up with what you said! You said, "she said that she didn't know the full details." It didn't say that. As you've quoted above... it said, "she was unsure".
But according to your other posts, it is clear that you were aware (but thanks for playing the feign game) and had read at least part of the second linked article and would have been aware that it said that she "could not recall the specifics" (emphasis added). But you had to go on doing your thing even though it is clear that is not the case, even according to what you yourself posted and presumably read (see copied posts below displaying your folly). It's reasonable to presume you read it because you felt the need to include your snide remark to a person that "we're all able to read the, very clear, OP." Well... if you're able to read it and it's very clear, then what in the heck are you going on about!?!? That very thing that is so very clear, which you're able to read said, "she could not recall the specifics" (emphasis added). Nothing in either article about "knowing"!
Back to your post/comment policing of anything not oh so very clear content with your impeccable reading acumen. Do better.
image.thumb.png.2574d22e8c3ed9daceb10e0b8d0259d2.png

Edited by Sig

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...