• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

London van attack: One dead as police investigate incident as terrorism

Recommended Posts

Astra.Xtreme    2,852
1 minute ago, Nefarious Trigger said:

Ah you you DO agree with him then.  That's great.

 

And "because: context" without providing the context you feel exonerates you is also a huge cop-out.

Ah yes, another deflection.  Funny how you claim it's a cop-out when it wasn't even a response to anything specific.  Perhaps you should revisit what a cop-out actually is.  Again with the context...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Human.Online    8,677
Just now, Astra.Xtreme said:

English isn't hard

Ah, "because: context", right?  I have read what you typed and you know what appears to be missing from much of it?

 

ProTip on English from an Englishman: context; without it, I could argue that you leave yourself open to an ambiguous interpretation!  Maybe you should force-feed people your truths?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rippleman    3,851
3 minutes ago, wakjak said:

Would he say most criminals are terrorists?

What does this have to do with anything? If you wish to interchange the words, so be it. let me rewqord for you AGAIN. It will be the last time I attempt. I know you are dodging so you don't have to agree with me but it is obvious.
 

Would wakjak say (in his opinion) that the vast majority of criminals and terrorists are eventually released from prison/institution?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Human.Online    8,677
Just now, Astra.Xtreme said:

Ah yes, another deflection.  Funny how you claim it's a cop-out when it wasn't even a response to anything specific.  Perhaps you should revisit what a cop-out actually is.  Again with the context...

No deflection at all, I am responding directly to you, as you are to me.  Your response to me, not being a response to anything, right?  Wow, you seem to be hugely confused by what you are even attempting to say.  Provide context to your posts, rather than allowing others to provide their own force-fed media-driven contexts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Astra.Xtreme    2,852
2 minutes ago, Nefarious Trigger said:

Ah, "because: context", right?  I have read what you typed and you know what appears to be missing from much of it?

 

ProTip on English from an Englishman: context; without it, I could argue that you leave yourself open to an ambiguous interpretation!  Maybe you should force-feed people your truths?

Wow you really love those deflection tactics, don't you?  Funny how you're now attacking me when you won't even attempt to justify your own claims...  That's a new low...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Human.Online    8,677
2 minutes ago, Astra.Xtreme said:

Wow you really love those deflection tactics, don't you?  Funny have your now attacking me when you won't even attempt to justify your own claims...  That's a new low...

You find it funny?  I'm really glad.  You have taken a response and applied your own context to create humour.  Well done you!

 

So far, you have used "media force-fed opinions", "Because: context" and now "ah but: deflection" as your responses, and claim I am the one without a justification.  I know full well what a cop-out is, and your posts give clear context in how to use one.

 

And attacking you?  You interpret this as an attack?  Oh you poor snowflake!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wakjak    19,610
Just now, Rippleman said:

What does this have to do with anything?

um... the topic at hand? Are you awake? Still sleeping? 

 

1 minute ago, Rippleman said:

If you wish to interchange the words

Quote

The man was initially arrested on suspicion of attempted murder but Scotland Yard said he was later arrested for the commission, preparation or instigation of terrorism including murder and attempted murder.

I'm not interchanging anything.

 

4 minutes ago, Rippleman said:

Would wakjak say (in his opinion) that the vast majority of criminals and terrorists are eventually released from prison/institution?

Again, I will tell you, for the last time, since I know you're not dodging, but are either being obtuse or just can't understand.

 

Would he say that the vast majority of criminals ARE terrorists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Astra.Xtreme    2,852
2 minutes ago, Nefarious Trigger said:

No deflection at all, I am responding directly to you, as you are to me.  Your response to me, not being a response to anything, right?  Wow, you seem to be hugely confused by what you are even attempting to say.  Provide context to your posts, rather than allowing others to provide their own force-fed media-driven contexts.

Since you're clearly too lazy to do it yourself, here's a copy-paste of my first comment you're so enthralled with... "It's best to ignore the people that have a closed mind, and especially the ones that get over excited about everything the media force feeds them."  I even did you the favor of pasting the entire sentence instead of cherry-picking it.  You're welcome...  Now take a few minutes, read it through a few times, and let it sink in.  Please explain for us where I make mention of conflicting views.  Surely it has to be in there somewhere....  You may need to go back a page and check some of the comments before and after what I said.  Probably even your initial few comments.  I hope I'm not asking too much...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StrikedOut    175

Not sure what is more appropriate, 

 

This:

 

trainn.jpg

 

Or this:

 

 

64480511.jpg

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Human.Online    8,677
6 minutes ago, Astra.Xtreme said:

my first comment you're so enthralled with

You over-estimate the value that I assign to your posts.

 

6 minutes ago, Astra.Xtreme said:

Please explain for us where I make mention of conflicting views

For us?  You refer to yourself as multiple people?  That does explain quite a lot - as I figured I was only responding to the one personality.

 

Thank you for quoting, it's actually rather helpful.  The quote you make does indeed not mention conflicting views.  You are however quoting a post that was a response to WakJak's comments and in support of someone who disagreed with him.  You know what this is called, when you post something within the framework of an existing topic?  Go on, guess... That's right.  It's called "context".  My response is called "inference", and it seems I was spot on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shockz    6,291
18 minutes ago, Rippleman said:

2 things here...first,  NO my statement is not presuming anything. second, yes, I do presume separately that he will get out. Let me ask you a question: Statistically, are most criminals released in time?

Most criminals who mow down a person in a car with malicious intent usually don't walk free. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rippleman    3,851
8 minutes ago, wakjak said:

Would he say that the vast majority of criminals ARE terrorists?

This is an obvious no, why bother down this route when the question doesn't even require to be answered? (example: can newborns walk?!?!?!)

I am done, you are one weird petty dude.

2 minutes ago, shockz said:

Most criminals who mow down a person in a car with malicious intent usually don't walk free. 

Unfortunately eventually, yes after they serve whatever punishment the state gives them. That is the way the default system works. I don't know why you and the other guy are hung up on this thread derailment but I am done. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shockz    6,291
6 minutes ago, Rippleman said:

Unfortunately eventually, yes after they serve whatever punishment the state gives them. That is the way the default system works. I don't know why you and the other guy are hung up on this thread derailment but I am done. 

No, that's not at all how this works. And I've literally replied once to your post, I'm not the one derailing here. Thanks for being done, not sure why you'd expect to not be called out on utter nonsense. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Astra.Xtreme    2,852
9 minutes ago, Nefarious Trigger said:

You over-estimate the value that I assign to your posts.

 

Thank you for quoting, it's actually rather helpful.  The quote you make does indeed not mention conflicting views.  You are however quoting a post that was a response to WakJak's comments and in support of someone who disagreed with him.  You know what this is called, when you post something within the framework of an existing topic?  Go on, guess... That's right.  It's called "context".  My response is called "inference", and it seems I was spot on.

Nice work on contradicting yourself in the same comment...  You were pretty close to understanding what I said, and then you chose to go on an interesting tangent.  Not sure why the word "context" has been such a distraction for you.  Sorry, I clearly asked too much of you.  I'll keep it more basic for you next time.

 

So this has been thoroughly entertaining.  :rolleyes:  Didn't expect that semantics of words would be such an interesting science project for some people...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Human.Online    8,677
6 minutes ago, Astra.Xtreme said:

Nice work on contradicting yourself in the same comment...  You were pretty close to understanding what I said, and then you chose to go on an interesting tangent.  Not sure why the word "context" has been such a distraction for you.  Sorry, I clearly asked too much of you.  I'll keep it more basic for you next time.

 

So this has been thoroughly entertaining.  :rolleyes:

No contradiction at all, in fact quite the opposite as I pointed out the absolute flaw in your argument.  But hey, you seem to lack the skills to grasp the meaning of the words you use.  Keep on keeping on, keep on using the same tired responses of:

 

Deflection

Context

Force-fed media

 

Now you will use a tired attempt to undermine my post with an accusation that I have contradicted myself (without either context or a reference).  Well tried, but ultimately failed.

 

I'm sure they are really strong arguments from your perspective, and while the rest of the world finds them facile attempts to argue - you seem happy enough.  Ignorance is bliss :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Human.Online    8,677
8 minutes ago, Astra.Xtreme said:

Didn't expect that semantics of words would be such an interesting science project for some people...

Didn't expect that anyone would struggle so much with the English language that they would elevate such pointless twaddle to the level of "science project".  Takes all sorts...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Astra.Xtreme    2,852
2 minutes ago, Nefarious Trigger said:

Didn't expect that anyone would struggle so much with the English language that they would elevate such pointless twaddle to the level of "science project".  Takes all sorts...

Between all the deflections and your refusal to acknowledge portions of my comments, I'm the one that struggles with the English language?  That's pretty rich coming from you...

9 minutes ago, Nefarious Trigger said:

No contradiction at all, in fact quite the opposite as I pointed out the absolute flaw in your argument.  But hey, you seem to lack the skills to grasp the meaning of the words you use.  Keep on keeping on, keep on using the same tired responses of:

 

Deflection

Context

Force-fed media

 

I'm sure they are really strong arguments from your perspective, and while the rest of the world finds them facile attempts to argue - you seem happy enough.  Ignorance is bliss :)

Ignorance is bliss, huh?  Oh the irony... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rippleman    3,851
17 minutes ago, shockz said:

No, that's not at all how this works. And I've literally replied once to your post, I'm not the one derailing here. Thanks for being done, not sure why you'd expect to not be called out on utter nonsense. 

Curiosity has spiked my interest. I must ask, how does it work from where you are from? Here in Canada, if someone does a crime, they go before a court where they are found innocent or guilty. If found guilty, they are  sentenced for a certain amount of time (varies dependent on circumstances) as punishment and/or rehabilitation and then released after that time expires. Where you are from, it doesn't work that way? If don't differently, then I can see why you thought it could be "utter nonsense" as you posted, but if it works that way where you are from, then you are actually agreeing with me and don't even realize it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Human.Online    8,677
3 minutes ago, Astra.Xtreme said:

Between all the deflections and your refusal to acknowledge portions of my comments, I'm the one that struggles with the English language?  That's pretty rich coming from you...

Ignorance is bliss, huh?  Oh the irony... 

A whole bunch of drivel with the accusations of deflections and yet no real content.  Presented within the context of someone who is astounded that their use of the English language would be their downfall, this is highly amusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shockz    6,291
9 minutes ago, Rippleman said:

Curiosity has spiked my interest. I must ask, how does it work from where you are from? Here in Canada, if someone does a crime, they go before a court where they are found innocent or guilty. If found guilty sentenced for a certain amount of time as punishment and/or rehabilitation and then released after that time expires. From where you are from, it doesn't work that way?

I'll bite, even though you're being intentionally obtuse.

 

Usually when you kill an innocent person, with intent to kill, and not an accident, the following happens when you are found guilty:

 

1) You are sentenced to life in prison, with the remote possibility of parole, however by the time that happens, the person has either died of old age/prison life, or the parole is denied. For extremely violent rampages, parole is usually not a possibility.

2) You are sentenced to death, and either die on death row or your death sentence is commuted to life in prison as laws and culture change.

3) You miraculously win an insane plea and serve out the rest of your life in an mental facility with no chance of freedom.

 

There are of course one off situations, by majority-wise, the 3 above are the most likely scenarios for a murderer. 

 

This isn't hitting someone when driving under the influence, or shooting someone in self defense, this is a pretty clear cut example of premeditation.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Astra.Xtreme    2,852
11 minutes ago, Nefarious Trigger said:

A whole more bunch of drivel with the accusations of deflections and yet no real content.  Presented within the context of someone who is astounded that their use of the English language would be their downfall, this is highly amusing.

I knew you couldn't go two comments without using the word "context".  Buzzword of the day for you, it seems.

And closely followed by your stabs at my apparent lack of English comprehension for some reason...  Interesting...

 

I'm starting to see a parrot-like resemblance to your comments.  You find the shiny glow of some word in my comment and then reshape it into your responses multiple times.  Cherry-picked stab after stab...  Rather interesting.  I'm going to wager that "parrot" is going to set something off for your next gems.  Any takers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Human.Online    8,677
3 minutes ago, Astra.Xtreme said:

I knew you couldn't go two comments without using the word "context".  Buzzword of the day for you, it seems.

You attempted to use it as a justification when called out on talking nonsense, and it blew up in your face.  I find it hugely amusing.

 

4 minutes ago, Astra.Xtreme said:

Any takers?

"Oh no, I'm losing an argument and running out of deflections - somebody help me"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Astra.Xtreme    2,852
5 minutes ago, Nefarious Trigger said:

You attempted to use it as a justification when called out on talking nonsense, and it blew up in your face.  I find it hugely amusing.

 

"Oh no, I'm losing an argument and running out of deflections - somebody help me"

Seeing as you were the one constantly deflecting my comments, you are clearly still very lost or haven't the slightest clue what a deflection is.  The really "amusing" part of this all, is that the progression of what everybody said is still in plain sight on page 2 and 3 of this thread.  Looks like a flat out case of denial...  Cause-effect...  Following the chronological order of things, I expect another deflection from you in 3....2....1

 

And since you're concerned about who's winning and who's losing, the quickest way to do so is to divert onto an unrelated tangent and start throwing jabs at semantics (in your case it was misunderstanding my comment and then cherry-picking it to try to fabricate a case).  You chose that route rather quickly...  And no need for you to deny it.  The proof all lies on page 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rippleman    3,851
1 minute ago, shockz said:

Usually when you kill an innocent person, with intent to kill, and not an accident, the following happens when you are found guilty:

 

1) You are sentenced to life in prison, with the remote possibility of parole, however by the time that happens, the person has either died of old age/prison life, or the parole is denied. For extremely violent rampages, parole is usually not a possibility.

2) You are sentenced to death, and either die on death row or your death sentence is commuted to life in prison as laws and culture change.

3) You miraculously win an insane plea and serve out the rest of your life in an mental facility with no chance of freedom.

 

There are of course one off situations, by majority-wise, the 3 above are the most likely scenarios for a murderer. 

 

This isn't hitting someone when driving under the influence, or shooting someone in self defense, this is a pretty clear cut example of premeditation.

Shows only 59 people at the moment have a true "full life" sentence in England but it appears. in Canada, our laws are wayyyyy to lenient. Max sentencing is LIFE (with life being defined as 25 years with no possibility for parole). So if someone commits murder at age 20, even under the worst possible scenario, they  are out as early as 45. Never happens that way here though, even the most heinous of crimes killers walk very quickly... typically under 10 years.

 

My original position still stands, I hope they give this guy England's version of a true "life sentence" but I suspect it won't simply to due to probability. We will see I guess.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Human.Online    8,677
8 minutes ago, Astra.Xtreme said:

Seeing as you were the one constantly deflecting my comments, you are clearly still very lost or haven't the slightest clue what a deflection is.  The really "amusing" part of this all, is that the progression of what everybody said is still in plain sight on page 2 and 3 of this thread.  Looks like a flat out case of denial...  Cause-effect...  Following the chronological order of things, I expect another deflection from you in 3....2....1

OK, let me put it in little words that you can understand:  You have deflected every single argument made, I've explicitly pointed this out and you chose to ignore that, re-quote old comments in attempt to present them in a different light that you have fallen back on after the event, and it's all just gone horrendously wrong for you.

 

Obviously you will call this yet another deflection.  What more do you want?  You're like a child that isn't satisfied with the truth so keeps re-asking the same question in hope of a different result.  There isn't one.  Your original intent was obvious from the outset, you were called out on it, and since then you've failed to put any argument forward beyond tired responses dressed up as if they held any value  used by those who either can't recognise or deliberately don't care how foolish it makes them look.

 

Your trite "3... 2... 1..." attempts to line me up for what you may interpret as another "deflection", however the joke is on you - anyone with a modicum of common sense can see that you don't even comprehend the responses and are sat akin to a toddler with his hands over his ears screaming "can't hear you, don't care".  It's as pathetic now as it was over a page ago - well done, that is your legacy here, that is what you have contributed.  I would mockingly say "I hope you're proud" but the saddest part is that you probably are, and don't even understand why that is so laughable.

6 minutes ago, Rippleman said:

I hope they give this guy England's version of a true "life sentence"

England's version of a life sentence legally includes "eligible for parole after a fixed period set by the judge".  Unfortunately.

  • Like 1

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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.