Jump to content
BANGKOK
webfact

Ratchaburi: Elder sister makes gruesome discoveries after her brother went missing

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Burma Bill said:

You have obviously not read my explanation above. It was meant to be a serious question by a retired forensic expert using jargon when involved in a post mortem (and I apologise for this). The circumstances in this unfortunate affair seem strange.  You automatically thought it was a joke - not so!!

Newton's 4th Law: For every jerk there is an equal and opposite reaction. Not that Newton himself was known to be a sweet personality.

 

Bill sweetheart, don't double down. The anti-jerk forces will not relent. The Law says so.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/27/2020 at 8:22 AM, Bangkok Barry said:

I did read your 'explanation', and it was still a brain-dead comment. If you can't see that then I feel sorry for you. You really need to think before hitting the send button. Ask yourself questions like 'does this enhance the thread', 'can what I write be misunderstood', 'is my comment insensitive'. Stuff like that. 

Except he clearly has stated it was not meant as a joke.  You are inserting a joking tone.  He meant it seriously.  He clarified that it was a serious comment.  There's nothing in the comment that puts it in a context of having to be a joking tone.  That was your reading of it, which he clarifies was not his intent.  Pretty clear.  You just want to have a go and have it be a joke, even though he's said it's not a joke.

 

Now, in all seriousness, he has a point.   If the story is insinuating that the liver was from the crash victim, seems unlikely so why include it in the story at all?  But if it's raw, foul play is afoot, I think was Bill's reasoning.  If it's charred, the dog would have feasted on his burned body, which frankly seems very strange for a dog to do.  Either way, weird.

 

I think the liver has nothing to do with the crash.  As often is the case, a story from Thai media which has random facts and unexplained details.  I think it was translated from Thai, which probably contributes to confusing details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jimjim said:

Except he clearly has stated it was not meant as a joke.  You are inserting a joking tone.  He meant it seriously.  He clarified that it was a serious comment.  There's nothing in the comment that puts it in a context of having to be a joking tone.  That was your reading of it, which he clarifies was not his intent.  Pretty clear.  You just want to have a go and have it be a joke, even though he's said it's not a joke.

 

Now, in all seriousness, he has a point.   If the story is insinuating that the liver was from the crash victim, seems unlikely so why include it in the story at all?  But if it's raw, foul play is afoot, I think was Bill's reasoning.  If it's charred, the dog would have feasted on his burned body, which frankly seems very strange for a dog to do.  Either way, weird.

 

I think the liver has nothing to do with the crash.  As often is the case, a story from Thai media which has random facts and unexplained details.  I think it was translated from Thai, which probably contributes to confusing details.

I repeat, before posting - You really need to think before hitting the send button. Ask yourself questions like 'does this enhance the thread', 'can what I write be misunderstood', 'is my comment insensitive'. I was not the only one who misunderstood the intent of the post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...