Police shot to kill Brazilian - now we know.

[Freddie]

 

[david and julie]

Yes freddie you are right, this will be my last post in this thread.

All Quotes are from Ban-all-Sheds unless otherwise indicated.

Somewhat flawed.

If you disagree with what FWL said you should have said in what way you disagreed. Without this, your comment is of no value, as it can't be questioned.

Oh I really think not.....

Can't see why you stopped making sense ages ago.

I don't recall you saying that you were, and I haven't spotted you expressing any dismay to Slogger about what he says, but I haven't trawled the forum to make sure. Have you told him that what he's written is totally indefensible?

Very odd comment this. You are saying because I haven't said one thing I mean the other. I would liken that to you saying someone believed the earth is flat because they never said it was round! There was no comment because I didn't have anything to say.

But I'll tell you what I have seen though - I've seen other people commenting on your support and bias for him.

So what? I haven't hidden anything. Kendor and Oilman have openly supported you, exactly the same in my book.

You're looking in the wrong place. Try this:

This quote was in relation to Oilmans reply to FWL's gun law post, you are instead using it to justify your disgraceful remark.
As you seem to have an interpretation problem I will ask Oilman what he meant to clear the issue.
Oilman. Did you mean Slogger when you posted about any shooting?

That is true - I did not say accidentally. I was postulating a scenario where slogger shot himself as a result of being "thick as two short planks",

Pretty worthless words these really as we have already established you changed the wording. Incidently, this answers your later question.

Twisting of post tactics? What does that mean?

Whilst your remark is here though I feel I must comment on this disgusting comment you made.

"thick as two short planks"

I am not up to speed on these issues but it doesn't sound very PC to me. Minor matter I know, but when I am corresponding with a know-all so feel it to be one worth making even so.

I have now skipped a part of your post as it appears to say a lot whilst saying nothing. So to go to the later part of your story.

So you are (probably) in favour of corporal punishment, you describe yourself as a member of the "hang-em high brigade", you'd like to see capital punishment return, you think that drug dealers, paedophiles and liberals should be shot, but do not agree with any kind of violence against anyone?

Yes I am Pro capital and corporal punishment. Yes I did say I was against violence, however I was referring to you two (ban&slogger) and yes I can justify my comments too.
In the first part I am saying I am against violence in relation to you wanting Slogger dead.

Hopefully slogger, being as thick as two short planks, will shoot himself.

I can think of no other reason for this except that you disagree with his opinions. This then becomes violence(instigated) for no good reason, you want someone dead along with all the misery that causes.
In the second part, my comment about shooting drug dealers and paedophiles. Again no problem for me. Here we are talking about gutter rubbish which is causing utter misery and despair to countless thousands of people.Lives of victims and their families are ruined everyday by this rubbish.
The two issues bear no comparison whatsoever. the first is purely because you aren't getting your own way. Grow up, we don't always get our own way, its called life, go and get one.

Well, the only two people under discussion were me and Slogger. Since not even you would describe him as being liberal and against injustice, that only leaves me.

Can't see how you arrive at that really, just to remind you this is what I posted.

This forum is being dragged into the mire, partly by the very people who purport to be liberal and against injustice.

Clearly plural, do you not know what plural means? It means more than one person, so it makes this

that only leaves me

wrong. Do you have a complex?

Let's look at some of the things that slogger has recently said, shall we?

Why? if you have something to say about Slogger say it to him. I have allready told you I don't agree with everything he writes, here.
Quote by D&J

I don't agree with everything Slogger writes. I also don't agree with the bullying and twisting of post tactics you and your ilk employ either.

Bullying? Where, and how, have I bullied? I'm sure I've said harsh or attacking things in anger, but that is not bullying.

Utter garbage. There is a bullying clique in operation and you are a part of it. You've been found out and don't like it, thats the reality of all this.

And if you are concerned about breaking forum rules, I would remind you of this:

The Mod's have asked that we all help them. Indeed, it was in another posts and coincidentally you were wingeing then too.

As I've said, it was a fairly mild "bashing" in comparison with much that is not removed, and if you deny people the ability to question someones reasoning in the course of a debate over differences of opinion then you might as well not have a forum at all.

You should take a serious look at what is not removed by the mods, and compare it to what I wrote, and see whether or not there is a clique of mods favouring slogger.


I can only presume you have not read what has been going on otherwise you would not come out with such a misguided comment such as this.

In another post Slogger called me a moron.

His post was not removed, mine was.

How else would you view those two decisions?
_____________________________________
Moderator,

Because I didn't see it, it's becoming almost a full time job to control this in the "General Chat" let alone the other sections There's nothing to stop you to "Alert moderators" to help us.

I believe the term is hypocrite.

And that's not abuse - it's a demonstrably true description.

A hypocrite is someone who is against violence but hopes for the death of a fellow forum member.

Twist that however you like but you can never change it. You are have clearly shown this here on this thread.

I can't be bothered with any more of this. You are not as challenging as you would like to think.

 

[AdamW]

I'm just wondering... does the phrase "Give me a Brazilian" retain it's old meaning?

Only my mate said she's going to have a waxing next week and I'm not sure if I need to warn her...

 

[Freddie]

I'm just wondering... does the phrase "Give me a Brazilian" retain it's old meaning?

Only my mate said she's going to have a waxing next week and I'm not sure if I need to warn her...

Post the pics Adam or do you want my email

 

[kevplumb]

class adam

 

[kendor]

It now seems that selective comments about shooting or maiming people are ok but all others are wrong? something not quite right there?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Yes freddie you are right, this will be my last post in this thread.

All Quotes are from Ban-all-Sheds unless otherwise indicated.

Somewhat flawed.

If you disagree with what FWL said you should have said in what way you disagreed. Without this, your comment is of no value, as it can't be questioned.

When I said that, I was referring to your post, not his. I know it was in reply to him, but the way it works is:

FWL: (Dave's) post above is one of the best thought out replies I have seen in ages on any forum..

Me: Somewhat flawed.

Sorry for confusing you by not writing "It's somewhat flawed"

I don't recall you saying that you were, and I haven't spotted you expressing any dismay to Slogger about what he says, but I haven't trawled the forum to make sure. Have you told him that what he's written is totally indefensible?

Very odd comment this. You are saying because I haven't said one thing I mean the other. I would liken that to you saying someone believed the earth is flat because they never said it was round! There was no comment because I didn't have anything to say.

You criticised what I wrote, saying it was totally indefensible, and complaining that it contravened various forum rules. You remained completely silent when Slogger, over and over again, said things which if they were judged on the same basis as what I wrote were also totally indefensible and also contravened forum rules.

You are undeniably biased. If a football referee had ignored several fouls committed by one side, and then penalised the first one made by the other, do you really think he would avoid charges of bias? By remaining silent through all of Sloggers posts and then jumping on mine you've behaved in the same way.

But I'll tell you what I have seen though - I've seen other people commenting on your support and bias for him.

So what? I haven't hidden anything. Kendor and Oilman have openly supported you, exactly the same in my book.

There is a big difference between supporting someone and wanting a biased enforcement of rules. It's very convenient, isn't it, to say "I don't agree with everything Slogger writes", but your actions tell a different story.

By all means support him if you wish, either explictly or implicitly - it's a free country, but do not, ever, complain that posts you don't like are breaking the rules when the person you support breaks the same rules a lot more egregiously.

You're looking in the wrong place. Try this:

This quote was in relation to Oilmans reply to FWL's gun law post, you are instead using it to justify your disgraceful remark.

You keep making the same mistake. Yes, oilman had posted in reply to FWL's gun law post, but then Slogger did join in, and this:

........time to take a hard stand against illegal scum

As I said, to make it fair, ALL transgressors should get the same, so are you going to shoot yourself, or do you want someone else to do it?

was directed at him. The quote in oilman's post was from Slogger.

If you don't believe me, click on this link: //www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=194701#194701 - it will take you right there.

That is true - I did not say accidentally. I was postulating a scenario where slogger shot himself as a result of being "thick as two short planks",

Pretty worthless words these really as we have already established you changed the wording.
You've established nothing. What wording have I changed? Apart from one time when, in the above quote of oilman's post, I changed the embedded [ Quote ] to [ Quote="Slogger" ] in order to clarify to you who had said what, I've changed nothing. I've not modified any text written by others, and I have not gone back and edited my own. If you think I've changed some wording, please show us where.

I must comment on this disgusting comment you made.

"thick as two short planks"

I am not up to speed on these issues but it doesn't sound very PC to me. Minor matter I know, but when I am corresponding with a know-all so feel it to be one worth making even so.

Again you are refusing to read what has gone before. I've already pointed out that it was Slogger who first described himself as that - all I've done is to use his own term.

I have now skipped a part of your post as it appears to say a lot whilst saying nothing.

Oh look - you've skipped the part where I expose more of your hypocrisy and lies.

Yes I am Pro capital and corporal punishment. Yes I did say I was against violence, however I was referring to you two (ban&slogger) and yes I can justify my comments too.

Your words were these (and lest I am again accused of twisting them I will say up front that I have added the emphases. But I have not changed one letter of what you wrote):

I do not agree with any kind of violence against anyone, regardless of colour or nationalty

And as well as the various quotes of yours which you claim say nothing, but which actually show that statement to be a lie, we now have your admission above that you support Slogger's views. These views include the advocating of violence, arson and murder.

In the first part I am saying I am against violence in relation to you wanting Slogger dead.

Hopefully slogger, being as thick as two short planks, will shoot himself.

I can think of no other reason for this except that you disagree with his opinions. This then becomes violence(instigated) for no good reason, you want someone dead along with all the misery that causes.

When FWL said that liberals should be shot, you said you agreed with him. I can think of no other reason for this except that you disagree with liberals' opinions. This then becomes violence (instigated) for no good reason, you want people dead along with all the misery that causes.

In the second part, my comment about shooting drug dealers and paedophiles. Again no problem for me. Here we are talking about gutter rubbish which is causing utter misery and despair to countless thousands of people.Lives of victims and their families are ruined everyday by this rubbish.

If you believe that is the right course of action, why did you say "I do not agree with any kind of violence against anyone"? Don't try and say that you only meant it in relation to violence against Slogger - it is an extremely absolute and unambiguous statement opposing all violence.

The two issues bear no comparison whatsoever. the first is purely because you aren't getting your own way.

Nonsense - there's nothing going on here in which I am, or am not, or could be "getting my own way". Slogger said he wanted to shoot people, or have them shot. I said hopefully he'd shoot himself. That would seem a neat way to reduce the overall level of violence being perpetrated or suggested. Surely you should be in favour of such a reduction, unless you too think that there should be armed guards on tunnel entrances etc to shoot illegal immigrants?

Well, the only two people under discussion were me and Slogger. Since not even you would describe him as being liberal and against injustice, that only leaves me.

Can't see how you arrive at that really, just to remind you this is what I posted.

This forum is being dragged into the mire, partly by the very people who purport to be liberal and against injustice.

Clearly plural, do you not know what plural means? It means more than one person, so it makes this

that only leaves me

wrong. Do you have a complex?

No, I don't.

I apologise for misunderstanding you - thanks for making it clear that you don't think I am dragging this forum into the mire.

Let's look at some of the things that slogger has recently said, shall we?

Why? if you have something to say about Slogger say it to him. I have allready told you I don't agree with everything he writes, here.
Quote by D&J

I don't agree with everything Slogger writes.

No - you misunderstand - my quoting of those statements was not directed at Slogger. I did it because I thought you were accusing me (and maybe others) of dragging the forum into the mire, and I wanted to show how Slogger was proposing some pretty unpleasant policies.

Now that you have said I'm not dragging it into the mire, I no longer need to make that point, except to say that you might like to wonder if someone who posts in favour of discrimination, religious intolerance, cruelty, arson and murder might be one of the people who are so dragging it....

I also don't agree with the bullying and twisting of post tactics you and your ilk employ either.

Bullying? Where, and how, have I bullied? I'm sure I've said harsh or attacking things in anger, but that is not bullying.

Utter garbage. There is a bullying clique in operation and you are a part of it. You've been found out and don't like it, thats the reality of all this.

Bully n. A person who uses strength or power to coerce others by fear.

Bully v.t. Persecute, oppress, physically or morally, by (threat of) superior force.

All I'm doing is refusing to allow you to get away with your biased behaviour. That is not bullying.

And if you are concerned about breaking forum rules, I would remind you of this:

The Mod's have asked that we all help them. Indeed, it was in another posts and coincidentally you were wingeing then too.

As I've said, it was a fairly mild "bashing" in comparison with much that is not removed, and if you deny people the ability to question someones reasoning in the course of a debate over differences of opinion then you might as well not have a forum at all.

You should take a serious look at what is not removed by the mods, and compare it to what I wrote, and see whether or not there is a clique of mods favouring slogger.


I can only presume you have not read what has been going on otherwise you would not come out with such a misguided comment such as this.

In another post Slogger called me a moron.

His post was not removed, mine was.

How else would you view those two decisions?
_____________________________________
Moderator,

Because I didn't see it, it's becoming almost a full time job to control this in the "General Chat" let alone the other sections There's nothing to stop you to "Alert moderators" to help us.

Not sure why you've posted something from a different thread in here in place of the original text - could it be because what I wrote showed how when FWL advocated shooting people, you didn't complain that it broke forum rules, you in fact agreed with him?

Interesting to note that you try to dismiss all criticism of your behaviour as wingeing (sic).

I believe the term is hypocrite.

And that's not abuse - it's a demonstrably true description.

A hypocrite is someone who is against violence but hopes for the death of a fellow forum member.

So as you've complained about liberals dragging this forum into the mire, and as you have agreed that liberals should be shot, and as you have also said that you are against any kind of violence, it seems that you meet your own definition of hypocrite.

I agree with you - twist that however you like but you can never change it. You are have clearly shown this here on this thread.

And BTW - I've never said I wanted Slogger dead - I just said shot - how do you know I wouldn't have been satisfied with just a wounding? The context in which the idea of him shooting himself was one in which guns were being used to shoot people he regards as undesirable. I think it would be perfect poetic justice, therefore, if he were to shoot himself.

I can't be bothered with any more of this. You are not as challenging as you would like to think.

<Shrug>

 

[Big_Spark]

Guys Guys, we all agree and disagree, depending on the topic and the tone of posts, and whether we read them how the poster intended them. We all get it wrong sometimes, but why do you feel the need for this catty quoting of each other.

Yes D&J, BAS can be a pain in the rear occasionally, as can I, and you, AdamW and numerous others here, is this not the reason many of us post here, because we have strong views and stand up for them?

D&J, you and I have disagreed on occasion, and you have posted replies to me that were childish and sometime simply insulting, as I have in reply, your post about some members dragging the forums into the mire is a simple case of the Pot calling the kettle black, and as you liked to quote the meaning of the word hypocrite, I suggest you read it again to avoid confusion.

BAS, you have posted some great posts on here and ATT, yet recently you have alowed yourself to drift into petty sniping at almost every turn, why I do not know, and I do feel it a shame. We may not always agree, but your posts used to be well thought out, if wrong sometimes (IMHO).

We ALL fall into the trap of silly replies, lets simply not let point scoring reduce a given thread to the levels we are seeing in this one where the posting has degenerated to a level where it has nothing to do with the thread topic.

Oh BAS, your wrong about slogger, he couldn't possibly shoot himself, he's too daft to release the safety in the first place (For all you lot out there with no sense of humour THAT IS A JOKE)

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'm not indulging in petty sniping or gratuitous point-scoring.

I was the subject of biased and hypocritical attacks by D&J which included repeated denials of the truth in respect of quotes that I had used. All I've done is to consistently produce evidence to show the extent of his bias and hypocrisy.

BTW - Glock rather than Sig????

 

[Big_Spark]

BAS, you are simply prooving my point by your reply. BOTH of you have sunk to the same types of post in this thread, both have used quotes from other threads to attempt to get your point of view across.

Both you and D&J are right on some points and wrong on others.

It's better to let it go.

I prefer the Sig, which is why I own one.

 

[AdamW]

I've just heard that beauticians are picketing New Scotland Yard...

Apparently they're furious about the Police doing Brazilians for nothing...

 

[Big_Spark]

I've just heard that beauticians are picketing New Scotland Yard...

Apparently they're furious about the Police doing Brazilians for nothing...

Oh your so funny....NOT!!

 

[Moz]

CALM DAHN ,CALM DAHN ,CALM DAHN ,
*said in A thick scouse accent *

 

[JulieL]

I've just heard that beauticians are picketing New Scotland Yard...

Apparently they're furious about the Police doing Brazilians for nothing...

Good one Adam!

 

[oilman]

I agree with FWL.