Why another shooting?

[anotheoldgit]

http://tinyurl.com/645367t

Yet another savage crime in London, this time a young Asian child was one of the victims.

Why? one asks, well it would seem from the report that some black youths had most likely been refused booze from the Asian shopkeeper, a row ensued and one returned with a gun, shooting both the shopkeeper and the girl.

I suppose I once again will be accused of racism for daring to enter this news story, which this time is not taken from the Daily Mail, but it is time we were able to conduct a normal debate and address the issues.

The related article written by the chief reporter of The Daily Telegraph although dated 26/06/10 addresses the problem of violent inner city black crime, and opens up a whole can of worms on what is a very sensitive issue.

http://tinyurl.com/26ec5gl

[jackthehat]

Someone, it seems, has been masquerading as AOG.....

Here's the evidence ........
<<Seems simple enough to me, but then I have not got to get over any particular agenda.>>>

So who has been posting the single-agenda threads which have apparently come from AOG ?

[pa___ul3]

I may well do Zeuhl! I could be the Charles Darwin of the underworld!

JTH, it appears that the real AOG has no interest in actually manifesting any agenda so he seemingly convinces himself he hasn't got one. Like when I asked him to back up his theory he simply puts his fingers in his ears and goes laalaalaa until it goes away! And then pats himself on the back for holding such a balanced debate! Funny ol' chap!

[Everhelpful]

I will go with the answer Steve5 gave.

[andy-hughes]

AOg appears to have taken on the mantle of 'explainer to the non-comprehending' - the only explanation I can think of for quoting something back at me which i did not write, but was written by Steve 5.

I understand it may take one callous non-thinking bigot to make a facile 'point' about innocent people, and to state that if one gang member shoots another then that's perfectly acceptable, but it really does not need the intervention of his like-minded associate to explain the point to me.

I understand written English - I create it for money on a daily basis - I just don't happen to agree with the points made, and having it repeated to me does not make me understand it any better.

[anotheoldgit]

andy-hughes

/// I just don't happen to agree with the points made, and having it repeated to me does not make me understand it any better. ///

Doesn't this not show up a complete arrogance on your part?

Did you take this attitude at school, when perhaps your teacher was trying to explain to you the finer points of physics for example?

You asked,

/// I can only assume - feel free to correct me if i am wrong - that your point means that there are slightly less black and / or Asian people cluttering up the place of they occasionally kill each other - and a child is included because she is Asian, so that fits just fine.///

Once again your words not steve5's. How many more times, he was referring to black on black gang crime, no mention of Asians, either children or adults, these are just andy-hughes add-ons to help and put an entirely different slant on things.

So If you do not want people to explain your miss-quotes, then you should not keep asking them to 'correct you if you are wrong'.

[andy-hughes]

steve5 - I mentioned in one of my last quotes, that if i had misunderstood you, then you were most welcome to correct my perceptions. This you have thus far failed to to which means either you have not read my post, or have read them and decided that I need no correction.

I should advise you that AOG has taken it upon himself to answer my post you you, which is someone presumptious, given that I have stated previously that I am not interested in exchanging personal dialogue with him for any reason, as it simply leads to an endless pointless exhchange which clutters up the thread for others.

Maybe you might like to advise him that you are perfectly capable of speaking for yourself, and the absence of a response from you does not require his take on what he things you might mean to say.

[anotheoldgit]

andy-hughes

/// AOg appears to have taken on the mantle of 'explainer to the non-comprehending' ///.

You have it in one, you have the roles completely correct, In this instance I am taking the part as the 'explainer' and you as the continuous non-comprehending'.

/// the only explanation I can think of for quoting something back at me which i did not write, but was written by Steve 5.///.

And again you are correct to state that I was quoting something written by Steve 5 and not written by you.

Why else should I be trying to explain to you what steve5 had actually wrote, and not how you interpreted it?

[anotheoldgit]

andy-hughes

For someone who admits that they earn a living from understanding English, if this is indeed true, then your posts don't image that fact, but then perhaps you mean just understanding it, not actually writing it?

/// I should advise you that AOG has taken it upon himself to answer my post you you, /// (repeated word, and cannot understand their inclusion anyway)
/// which is someone presumptious, (somewhat presumptuous,
do you mean?) ///
/// given that I have stated previously that I am not interested in exchanging personal dialogue with him for any reason, as it simply leads to an endless pointless exhchange /// (exchange) which clutters up the thread for others.///

Perhaps he would care to count the number of his own posts that have contributed towards cluttering up the thread for others?

/// Maybe you might like to advise him that you are perfectly capable of speaking for yourself, ///

Forever telling people either what to think or what to do, that is typical. ///

[anotheoldgit]

triggerhippy

Yet another third-rater trying to muscle in on the act.

Feel free, but please try and use original material.

[MoonshinePete]

What does POF stand for is it Potty Old F******

[andy-hughes]

OK AOG - last time, so I'll try and make it worth my time -

/// I just don't happen to agree with the points made, and having it repeated to me does not make me understand it any better. ///

"Doesn't this not show up a complete arrogance on your part?"

I'd say not - we'll agree to differ.

So If you do not want people to explain your miss-quotes, then you should not keep asking them to 'correct you if you are wrong'.

I didn't - I asked Steve5 - which is not you ... I assume.

"For someone who admits that they earn a living from understanding English, if this is indeed true, then your posts don't image that fact, but then perhaps you mean just understanding it, not actually writing it?"

I didn't say I earned a living from it - I don't - i said i earn money from it - which I do.

/// Maybe you might like to advise him that you are perfectly capable of speaking for yourself, ///

Forever telling people either what to think or what to do, that is typical. ///

I used the phrase 'might like to advise' which does not in any way equate with 'telling people either what to think or what to do'.

/// which is someone presumptious, (somewhat presumptuous,
do you mean?) ///

I do indeed - butr if you are going to pick people up on the occasional mispelling - which you also do, and most people ignore it, because we all make mistakes - then you should beare of using 'image' as a verb when you appear to intend to say 'reflect', you should not use a verb that means 'to magine'. Be as pompous as you like about grammatical and spelling errors, but be prepared to be hoist by your own petard.

You are, and continue to be a pmpous blow-hard, and I am going to put into effect the full letter of my previous post - not only will i not respond to your personally on any thread, i will henceforth ceas

[Sooper]

We need an Answerbank Fight Club!

[andy-hughes]

ctd. You are, and continue to be a pompous blow-hard, and I am going to put into effect the full letter of my previous post - not only will I not respond to your personally on any thread, i will henceforth cease to coment on any of your observations.

So, unless you are unable to resist a response to this last series of comments from me - as if! - you can regard our correeposnces as concluded.

i know you have plenty of other people to fall out with, belittle, argue, mock, and riddicule, so don't let me keep you ...

[anotheoldgit]

triggerhippy

/// oh, and does this count as "cut and thrust" yet? ///

No way, you are still a 'third rater' I'm afraid.

But let me give you a little advice to join in the 'cut & thrust' one has to be able to put up a constructive argument to the debate.

Just sitting on the fence, making unoriginal comments, is no use whatsoever and is suited better on other topic sites but not on news topics.

So go away, pick-up on the latest news stories, come to your own particular conclusions, then put them together and enter them on the news topic site.

Then be prepared to take the flak from those who only want you to agree with their particular slant on things.

And before any of them can't wait to say isn't that what you do AOG, then my answer to them is 'NO' I only post my own slant on things I don't ask (no correct that) demand them to agree with me.

[anotheoldgit]

andy-hughes

1/ Yes agree to disagree in the first instance.

2/ /// I didn't say I earned a living from it - I don't - i said i earn money from it - which I do./// Yes quite correct, but you are merely playing with words.

3/ /// I used the phrase 'might like to advise' which does not in any way equate with 'telling people either what to think or what to do'. Correct I stand corrected this time, I could also be accused of playing with words.

4/ /// butr (but) if you are going to pick people up on the occasional mispelling -(miss-spelling) which you also do, and most people ignore it, because we all make mistakes - then you should beare (beware)

There I go again, simply because in the past I have only to make one mistake, and nearly all of AB criticises me, so why should I not have my moments?

Incidentally I stick by my usage of the word 'image' ie the opinion or concepts of something that is held by the public.

5/ but be prepared to be hoist with your own petard,.not as you said /// but be prepared to be hoist by your own petard./// the difference being with the words 'BY' and 'WITH'.

Hoist with his own petard, an't shall go hard
But I will delve one yard below their mines
And blow them at the moon.

Hamlet (Act 3, scene 4)

Cont.

[anotheoldgit]

Part 2

/// not only will I not respond to your personally on any thread, i will henceforth cease to coment (comment) on any of your observations.///

Well at least I got you to break your previous vow.

I am so sorry it has come to this, where did it all go wrong Andy? At one time you could debate without the need for you to throw out insults after insults, and criticise and ridicule me with other ABers.

Thankfully being the gentleman that I am, I have never had to resort to these rather childish and petty methods in debate, and I still can't understand why you have necessitated the use of these methods also.

I have my suspicions that it had something to do with that paragraph of yours that I questioned in the disfigurement question.

But before we part company, let me first explain when I asked you if your sentiments in that said paragraph might also be construed has having racial implications.

This was in no way accusing you of being racist, but to just point out to you, that if I was to have written the very same words as you did, can you imagine the flack that I would have attracted?

Farewell my friend.