This is somthing to ponder on

[Notch7]

No, my post was entirely honest

No it wasnt

You are dishonestly trying to represent your post as though it was in isolation, it wasn’t, context matters.


you did not qualify what you meant.
you still haven’t…..I wonder why that is

 

[Notch7]

And he has the brass neck to call the orange tnuc out for "alternative facts", and doubling down.......

It is you who have been dishonest.

You can recover yourself by qualifying what your post meant.

 

[Brigadier]

It is you who have been dishonest.

You can recover yourself by qualifying what your post meant.

I already have: it meant what the words said it meant.

 

[Brigadier]

..I wonder

Which is what you're left with, when the facts aren't to your liking

 

[Deleted member 221031]

Which is what you're left with, when the facts aren't to your liking

We all understand what your post mean. Notchy lives in a parallel universe and you’ve upset his equilibrium.

 

[Brigadier]

We all understand what your post mean. Notchy lives in a parallel universe and you’ve upset his equilibrium.

Perhaps a mention of Tufton, or neo-liberalism, will sort him out

 

[Roy Bloom]

I know your not psychic but we wasn't talking about, what a great film critic Barry Norman was.

Your originial ambiguous question, (that means unclear, or vague, or referring vaguely to more than one issue. )

Was Charles Bronson violent in the last decade to the public?

Charles Bronson the criminal has been in prison for the last decade, in a maximum security environment, how can he possibly have been violent to the public?
If you meant his last decade alive, he is still alive, so his last decade is undetermined.

Charles Bronson, the actor is dead, his last decade alive is very firmly determined, and he was free to roan among the public, and to be violent if he so chose. His film roles were depicitng him as violent.

So your original question regarding Charles Broson, the criminal, was nonsense. It can only have been applied, genuinely to Charles Bronson the actor.

Stupid boy!

 

[Deleted member 294929]

Your originial ambiguous question, (that means unclear, or vague, or referring vaguely to more than one issue. )


Charles Bronson the criminal has been in prison for the last decade, in a maximum security environment, how can he possibly have been violent to the public?
If you meant his last decade alive, he is still alive, so his last decade is undetermined.

Charles Bronson, the actor is dead, his last decade alive is very firmly determined, and he was free to roan among the public, and to be violent if he so chose. His film roles were depicitng him as violent.

So your original question regarding Charles Broson, the criminal, was nonsense. It can only have been applied, genuinely to Charles Bronson the actor.

Stupid boy!

But he died over 20 years ago . So could only be talking about the alive one.

 

[Deleted member 221031]

But he died over 20 years ago . So could only be talking about the alive one.

Your context made it obvious. Roy got it wrong again.

 

[Roy Bloom]

So could only be talking about the alive one.

Was Charles Bronson violent in the last decade to the public?

The one who's been incarcerated in a secure environment for the last 50 years or so?
The one who's had no interaction with the public for the last 50 years or so?
What do you think would be the answer to your question if you meant that one?
***!!

 

[Roy Bloom]

Your context made it obvious. Roy got it wrong again.

Was Charles Bronson violent in the last decade to the public?

The one who's been incarcerated in a secure environment for the last 50 years or so?
The one who's had no interaction with the public for the last 50 years or so?
What do you think would be the answer to your question if you meant that one?
***!!