xandreu wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 7:19 pm

Pseudonomdeplume wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 7:11 pm

xandreu wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 1:39 pm

Pseudonomdeplume wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 11:04 am

xandreu wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 11:27 pm Never a good idea to come to any firm conclusions based on a video that was taken by the complainant who not only had full editorial control over it before it was posted but also had full control over the narrative at the time of posting.

I'm not saying I believe or disbelieve her, but I refuse to come to any conclusion based on such one sided evidence. I get that the guy tried to pay off the cop, but that doesn't mean anything. He had a business to protect, from, for all we know, some crazed woman who had a completely unconnected grudge against him.

Hmmm... You seemed to have exercised hypocrisy here: "Never a good idea to come to any firm conclusions based on a video that..." and later remarking "I get that the guy tried to pay off the cop,..."


6/10 See me after class.

You're going to have to elaborate on that. I don't quite get the hypocrite bit...

Anyone?

I don't want to make a big deal about it, I will sometimes have a go when people discuss others, who are obviously going through a time they would prefer didn't happen, without them being able to defend themselves.

Not sure what is confusing. You said don't judge from video, then you said he was trying to bribe, which you judged to be happening from the video.

Can't believe you made me go through that.

This is my light entertainment. End of (I hope).

Did you watch the video? He attempted to shake hands with a policeman while concealing folded banknotes in his palm. You've clearly come to a very different conclusion to the rest of us as to what that meant.

I'd be interested to hear what your interpretation of that is?

He wanted the copper to go and get everyone a blasto from the drink shop that keeps them in the ice chest

yongchi wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 5:08 pm Please, for a second, put yourself in the shoes of the person who is at the receiving end.

I don't know either of the parties, nor the restaurant.

What I see is this:
Person A has posted their grievances about person B and their business and a heavily edited video (!) somewhere.
A complete CV of person B, including all their current roles, multiple images, and a hint of their former ownership of a competing forum has been added in the OP.

Search for the name and any of the bio info on Google, and this post (by the official news channel of this forum) could pop up in the search results.

What does not appear in this case file / news report:
What did other people see.
The other side of what happened there (or at least that they declined to comment).

Is that fair enough?

Many folks coming from Google won't even read potentially redeeming info that may have been posted on the following pages.

that is pretty much nonsense. As a former owner of TOF he is very well aware what is posted and is not the defenseless puppy you want us to believe he is. Given the evidence, there is nothing left to say. One potential strategy is blaming the victim - here we have already a nice roll call of volunteers doing that. Actually they are doing what you decry and that without cause. Lots of free beer and fries in BKK this time.

Michael Berg was in early 2018 a hot topic on the web boards when people speculated what his 'real' agenda was since he had taken over TOF. All bollocks. Gossip about CIA, the Cambodian government, his family connections, shady government connections in the U.S. and so on. One person got banned, postings disappeared and so on. Drama live. Leaked data and publicly available info showed that he is pretty creative when it comes to his cv. Looked impressive. Some cross checking and the gaps popped up. There was no degree from Georgetown; the University of Liverpool affiliation, not exactly top notch, was somewhat strange given his presence in PP but then a few clicks on all made sense. A remote online program. He claimed to be the representative of Kaercher, a well-known German company. That was surprising. Anybody who has dealt with conservative German companies would wonder how on earth did he pull that off? Is he so loaded? Again it turned out that a company he worked for was representing Kaercher and he was assigned to the job. This explains why he would not show up in searches relating to Kaercher. The Jaguar/Land Rover representation will be the same.
Where I come from people like that are called a schmuck. And given the schmuck he is, the attempted bribery video is just another instance. All appearances and very little substance. Disregard for proper standards coupled with a sense of entitlement.
The most rewarding aspect of the current community drama and also very funny is that ashley g. caught him red handed. The more shit his friends post about her the better. Let people think and present her as whatever they like. Fact is, the schmuck was no match for her. Which tells us all we need to know.

pinche cabron

The story in the OP seems to be rather inconsequential, this mostly seems like an airing of other personal grievances against this Berg character. The Cambodia forums have always reveled in the opportunity for character assassination, starting from TOF many years ago and continuing today on both forums and now in this thread.

"But he started it" "he used to have an online degree" comes off as petty, reaching comments. I've no knowledge of Berg so maybe he is a cunt, however, the posts being made are doing less to discredit Berg than they discredit the person posting them.

(Edit: If someone has links to where Wayne was making threats and encouraged by Berg can they PM them to me?)

I like the word schmuck much better.


What really matters is the bribery attempt. The story and the reactions tell us something about the expats in PP. It is popular to decry the police, the corruption and whatever. With more or less good reasons. The untold other side of the coin is, however, that the same people do like it when it suits them. And they not only like it, they engage in it.

The policeman who refused the money does not fit into their narrative. No wonder that comments on his behavior are few.

One reason for the defense of Michael Berg is that he did something these characters consider as being perfectly ok. In their view there is no reason even to comment about it. So the little incident works as a wonderful mirror for a good part of that expat community. It confronts self-perception with a very ugly reality.

and, the lady might be a total nut case or whatever negative attribute might come to mind but, still, she is way ahead of that scene and she got the guy. So who is the idiot in the end? Results speak for themselves.
Also there is no return. I cannot see him repairing that and maintaining the American Chamber affiliation. If he does then the story needs to move on to the next level.

GMJS-CEO you just dont get it. But that's ok.

Next stop Bulgaria?
Or maybe Auto da Fe' on riverside where they used to do Zumba?

I've little interest in the backstory of the main characters, or any regard for arguments or point-scoring attempts by those who believe they've got the skinny or worked out another Days of Our Lives episode in Phnom Penh. I just find the attempt of a venue owner trying to "thank" a cop openly on the floor of his business with clientele cameras rolling, hilarious. He has the sophistication and discrete elegance of a giraffe going to drink.