Be Excellent To Each Other

And, you know, party on. Dude.

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Reply to topic  [ 144 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: The Ferguson thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 11:02 
User avatar
ugvm'er at heart...

Joined: 4th Mar, 2010
Posts: 22256
Trooper wrote:
This Ferguson rioting business.

There are two eyewitnesses to the shooting, apart from the guy who was shot and the guy who did the shooting.
The eyewitnesses statements disagree with each other.
One of the eyewitnesses was his friend, who had just helped him rob a shop a few minutes before.
The policeman says he was attacked and the guy was trying to get his gun, the guys friend says they didn't do anything and were basically being all cooperative.


My opinion is that he probably did attack the cop, but didn't deserve to get killed over it. I would love to say I was surprised when it turned out that he wasn't this squeaky clean respectable citizen he had been made out to be, but it didn't come as a shock in the slightest.



It's all kicking off again over the pond!

Looking at my post above, I still stand by what I said at the time, and it seems the Jury agreed. That hasn't gone down at all well...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 11:53 
User avatar
Sleepyhead

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 27343
Location: Kidbrooke
The jury didn't agree as it said he deserved to die, though oddly it might have been that the majority lost as it needed a 9/12 majority to continue.

It just seems odd that Brown would attack the cop, flee, then when the cop starts shooting at him as he flees, he turns round, charges back at the cop with lethal intent and runs through six bullets in his charge, only to be killed by the 7th.

Smells super fishy to me.

_________________
We are young despite the years
We are concern
We are hope, despite the times


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 14:35 
User avatar
ugvm'er at heart...

Joined: 4th Mar, 2010
Posts: 22256
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphi ... timony.pdf

Have a read of the grand jury transcript and see for yourself how fishy it seems :)

edit: I haven't ready through it myself yet, but the tl;dr being stated is: Stole $50 of cigars, went after cop while he was in his car, gun goes off in the car, Officer Wilson exits car, Brown gets shot while charging officer Wilson, blood/casings/most physical evidence backs up Officer Wilson's story.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 15:07 
User avatar
UltraMod

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 55715
Location: California
At least there will be a trial to decide whether he was shot unlawfully or not.

_________________
I am currently under construction.
Thank you for your patience.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 15:19 
User avatar
Sleepyhead

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 27343
Location: Kidbrooke
I'll have to give that a read later. All I had seen reported re: the shots were that they indicated that Brown had turned around and that the final shot indicated he was leaning forwards (try getting shot six times without flinching).

Stealing cigars is immaterial, unless they upgraded that to a capital crime some time recently. The only way it can be justified by law is if Brown ran away from the officer, then changed his mind and charged him despite being unarmed and being shot repeatedly.

I'll read it later, but it still seems weird to me. Being a thief isn't a reason to execute someone.

_________________
We are young despite the years
We are concern
We are hope, despite the times


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 15:22 
User avatar
ugvm'er at heart...

Joined: 4th Mar, 2010
Posts: 22256
Curiosity wrote:

I'll read it later, but it still seems weird to me. Being a thief isn't a reason to execute someone.


Totally agree. However, attacking an officer, trying to take his gun, and charging at him while he has his gun pointed at you. It's a reasonable expectation that he is likely to shoot.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 15:31 
User avatar
UltraMod

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 55715
Location: California
Trooper wrote:
Curiosity wrote:

I'll read it later, but it still seems weird to me. Being a thief isn't a reason to execute someone.


Totally agree. However, attacking an officer, trying to take his gun, and charging at him while he has his gun pointed at you. It's a reasonable expectation that he is likely to shoot.

We'll find out who's right at the trial.

_________________
I am currently under construction.
Thank you for your patience.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 16:16 
SupaMod
User avatar
Est. 1978

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 69502
Location: Your Mum
In other Jesus shit-kicking Christ moments: http://stellavee.tumblr.com/post/103541390869

Some background (from what I can gather) - before the video they were stopped because the two adults in the front didn't have seatbelts on. A cop pulled his gun when the passenger reached into the glove compartment to get their ID, etc. That's why they don't want to open the door and only open the window a little bit to pass the stuff through, and then the recording starts.

Skip to 1:35 ish if you're in a hurry.

_________________
Grim... wrote:
I wish Craster had left some girls for the rest of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 17:17 
User avatar
ugvm'er at heart...

Joined: 4th Mar, 2010
Posts: 22256
As much as i'm a liberal hand wringing privacy no-cctv rimjobber, I firmly believe that all police officers should wear a camera and record all interactions. It will give protection to both them and the public from them...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 17:26 
User avatar
UltraMod

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 55715
Location: California
Trooper wrote:
As much as i'm a liberal hand wringing privacy no-cctv rimjobber, I firmly believe that all police officers should wear a camera and record all interactions. It will give protection to both them and the public from them...

"But how will we afford these cameras!?" as tanks roll through the streets of America.

_________________
I am currently under construction.
Thank you for your patience.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 18:29 
8-Bit Champion
User avatar
Two heads are better than one

Joined: 16th Apr, 2008
Posts: 14483
Quote:
"Officer Darren Wilson's story is unbelievable. Literally."


http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7281165/d ... story-side


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 19:40 
User avatar
ugvm'er at heart...

Joined: 4th Mar, 2010
Posts: 22256
zaphod79 wrote:
Quote:
"Officer Darren Wilson's story is unbelievable. Literally."


http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7281165/d ... story-side

His story is pretty obviously a lie, imo. However the forensic evidence matches his lie, so he put a bit more thought into it than the lie Brown's accomplice told...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 19:54 
SupaMod
User avatar
"Praisebot"

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 17013
Location: Parts unknown
Why is that story so unbelievable? By committing the robbery in the first place, Brown has already proven himself to be a thug so why is it so unbelievable that he'd get mouthy with a police officer?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 21:17 
User avatar
UltraMod

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 55715
Location: California
TheVision wrote:
Why is that story so unbelievable? By committing the robbery in the first place, Brown has already proven himself to be a thug so why is it so unbelievable that he'd get mouthy with a police officer?

I didn't realise being a thug meant you were allowed to be summarily executed in broad daylight.

_________________
I am currently under construction.
Thank you for your patience.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 21:45 
SupaMod
User avatar
"Praisebot"

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 17013
Location: Parts unknown
American Nervoso wrote:
TheVision wrote:
Why is that story so unbelievable? By committing the robbery in the first place, Brown has already proven himself to be a thug so why is it so unbelievable that he'd get mouthy with a police officer?

I didn't realise being a thug meant you were allowed to be summarily executed in broad daylight.


I didn't insinuate that and since I don't know the full facts of the shooting, I'm going to stay well clear of it. Pretty much all I've read on the case is that website and various bits and pieces here and on Twitter. I just don't think the police officers story is as unbelievable as that website makes out.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 22:49 
User avatar
UltraMod

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 55715
Location: California
At this point it's an irrelevance. White police officer shoots black civilian and the powers that be decide that there shouldn't be a trial to find out whether it was lawful or not.

If the perp had been white or the officer had been black? Quite likely a different story.

_________________
I am currently under construction.
Thank you for your patience.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 23:15 
User avatar
ugvm'er at heart...

Joined: 4th Mar, 2010
Posts: 22256
American Nervoso wrote:
At this point it's an irrelevance. White police officer shoots black civilian and the powers that be decide that there shouldn't be a trial to find out whether it was lawful or not.

If the perp had been white or the officer had been black? Quite likely a different story.

I'm assuming by powers that be you mean a jury of 12 peers?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 0:07 
User avatar
UltraMod

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 55715
Location: California
Trooper wrote:
American Nervoso wrote:
At this point it's an irrelevance. White police officer shoots black civilian and the powers that be decide that there shouldn't be a trial to find out whether it was lawful or not.

If the perp had been white or the officer had been black? Quite likely a different story.

I'm assuming by powers that be you mean a jury of 12 peers?

What are you talking about? There won't be an indictment, so no trial. So no jury.

I did wonder why you were talking a load of nonsense earlier - you don't even have the most basic of facts correct. :(

_________________
I am currently under construction.
Thank you for your patience.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 1:27 
SupaMod
User avatar
Commander-in-Cheese

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 49232
A grand jury decided there would be no indictment.

Of course, a grand jury only has prosecution, no defense. The running joke is that a grand jury always indicts, that they'll indict a ham sandwich. So you have to wonder just how shambolic the prosecution's efforts were that they failed to get one.

_________________
GoddessJasmine wrote:
Drunk, pulled Craster's pork, waiting for brdyime story,reading nuts. Xz


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 1:46 
User avatar
ugvm'er at heart...

Joined: 4th Mar, 2010
Posts: 22256
American Nervoso wrote:
Trooper wrote:
American Nervoso wrote:
At this point it's an irrelevance. White police officer shoots black civilian and the powers that be decide that there shouldn't be a trial to find out whether it was lawful or not.

If the perp had been white or the officer had been black? Quite likely a different story.

I'm assuming by powers that be you mean a jury of 12 peers?

What are you talking about? There won't be an indictment, so no trial. So no jury.

I did wonder why you were talking a load of nonsense earlier - you don't even have the most basic of facts correct. :(


Ironic.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 8:01 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 16553
Cras wrote:
A grand jury decided there would be no indictment.

Of course, a grand jury only has prosecution, no defense. The running joke is that a grand jury always indicts, that they'll indict a ham sandwich. So you have to wonder just how shambolic the prosecution's efforts were that they failed to get one.

Apparently this happens in just one in every eleven thousand cases. Something is well off.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 8:19 
User avatar
Sleepyhead

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 27343
Location: Kidbrooke
American Nervoso wrote:
Trooper wrote:
American Nervoso wrote:
At this point it's an irrelevance. White police officer shoots black civilian and the powers that be decide that there shouldn't be a trial to find out whether it was lawful or not.

If the perp had been white or the officer had been black? Quite likely a different story.

I'm assuming by powers that be you mean a jury of 12 peers?

What are you talking about? There won't be an indictment, so no trial. So no jury.

I did wonder why you were talking a load of nonsense earlier - you don't even have the most basic of facts correct. :(


There was a grand jury. 9 of them were white and I'm not sure how many black. Possibly none. They needed a 9/12 majority to indict, so all it needed was 4 white people who like the police.

_________________
We are young despite the years
We are concern
We are hope, despite the times


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 8:26 
User avatar
Gogmagog

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 48607
Location: Cheshire
The town always mess it up.

_________________
Mr Chris wrote:
MaliA isn't just the best thing on the internet - he's the best thing ever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 8:30 
User avatar
Sleepyhead

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 27343
Location: Kidbrooke
MaliA wrote:
The town always mess it up.


:DD

Should have used 'The Sweep'!

I have also read that the state prosecutor did not actually try to make a case against the police officer, just let the evidence all be put forwards in a confusing melange, but that might be bollocks.

_________________
We are young despite the years
We are concern
We are hope, despite the times


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 9:15 
User avatar
ugvm'er at heart...

Joined: 4th Mar, 2010
Posts: 22256
Curiosity wrote:
American Nervoso wrote:
Trooper wrote:
American Nervoso wrote:
At this point it's an irrelevance. White police officer shoots black civilian and the powers that be decide that there shouldn't be a trial to find out whether it was lawful or not.

If the perp had been white or the officer had been black? Quite likely a different story.

I'm assuming by powers that be you mean a jury of 12 peers?

What are you talking about? There won't be an indictment, so no trial. So no jury.

I did wonder why you were talking a load of nonsense earlier - you don't even have the most basic of facts correct. :(


There was a grand jury. 9 of them were white and I'm not sure how many black. Possibly none. They needed a 9/12 majority to indict, so all it needed was 4 white people who like the police.


Maybe I have too much faith in people, but I'd like to believe that the 12 people involved realised the scrutiny the result would be under, and made sure they made the choice based on something more than race.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 10:27 
User avatar
Sleepyhead

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 27343
Location: Kidbrooke
Trooper wrote:
Curiosity wrote:
American Nervoso wrote:
Trooper wrote:
American Nervoso wrote:
At this point it's an irrelevance. White police officer shoots black civilian and the powers that be decide that there shouldn't be a trial to find out whether it was lawful or not.

If the perp had been white or the officer had been black? Quite likely a different story.

I'm assuming by powers that be you mean a jury of 12 peers?

What are you talking about? There won't be an indictment, so no trial. So no jury.

I did wonder why you were talking a load of nonsense earlier - you don't even have the most basic of facts correct. :(


There was a grand jury. 9 of them were white and I'm not sure how many black. Possibly none. They needed a 9/12 majority to indict, so all it needed was 4 white people who like the police.


Maybe I have too much faith in people, but I'd like to believe that the 12 people involved realised the scrutiny the result would be under, and made sure they made the choice based on something more than race.


Have you seen/read 'To Kill A Mockingbird'?

Or just seen the general black/white divide in Ferguson and seen how the support for each person in the case is split?

_________________
We are young despite the years
We are concern
We are hope, despite the times


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 10:37 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 16553
This strikes me as very plausible:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2 ... ouldnt-win

Seems a bit more likely than that it was just because they are all racists.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 10:46 
User avatar
ugvm'er at heart...

Joined: 4th Mar, 2010
Posts: 22256
Curiosity wrote:

Or just seen the general black/white divide in Ferguson and seen how the support for each person in the case is split?


There is a big difference between what the media say is happening, what is actually happening, what people support or say when they are on TV, and what I would hope they would say when in a closed room, with all the evidence in front of them and time to rationally think about what they are doing and the consequences of their choices.

They are going to release all the evidence to the public, as it was given to the jury apparently. So we'll all be able to put ourselves in their position and make our own mind up if we want to :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 10:52 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 16553
The point is that it was highly unusual for the prosecutor to even give all the evidence at this stage. What pretty much always happens is the they present only the evidence which favours the case for the prosecution in order to get an indictment. The prosecutor didn't want a trial.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 10:54 
SupaMod
User avatar
Commander-in-Cheese

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 49232
markg wrote:
This strikes me as very plausible:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2 ... ouldnt-win

Seems a bit more likely than that it was just because they are all racists.


That does seem very possible - however it's not how it's supposed to work. The prosecutor's job in a grand jury is to secure an indictment, not to use the grand jury as a testbed to see if a trial would be worthwhile. When there is no defense it's bloody hard to not win these things.

Image

_________________
GoddessJasmine wrote:
Drunk, pulled Craster's pork, waiting for brdyime story,reading nuts. Xz


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 10:56 
SupaMod
User avatar
Commander-in-Cheese

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 49232
Trooper wrote:
They are going to release all the evidence to the public, as it was given to the jury apparently. So we'll all be able to put ourselves in their position and make our own mind up if we want to :)


All the evidence, none of the arguments. If trials/grand juries were decided on evidence, trial lawyers wouldn't earn a fucking fortune.

_________________
GoddessJasmine wrote:
Drunk, pulled Craster's pork, waiting for brdyime story,reading nuts. Xz


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 10:57 
User avatar
UltraMod

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 55715
Location: California
Trooper wrote:
American Nervoso wrote:
Trooper wrote:
American Nervoso wrote:
At this point it's an irrelevance. White police officer shoots black civilian and the powers that be decide that there shouldn't be a trial to find out whether it was lawful or not.

If the perp had been white or the officer had been black? Quite likely a different story.

I'm assuming by powers that be you mean a jury of 12 peers?

What are you talking about? There won't be an indictment, so no trial. So no jury.


I did wonder why you were talking a load of nonsense earlier - you don't even have the most basic of facts correct. :(


Ironic.

That's not irony, you berk. That's just me being wrong.

_________________
I am currently under construction.
Thank you for your patience.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 11:04 
SupaMod
User avatar
Est. 1978

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 69502
Location: Your Mum
American Nervoso wrote:
That's not irony, you berk. That's just me being wrong.

I prefer "hypocritical" ;)

_________________
Grim... wrote:
I wish Craster had left some girls for the rest of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 11:07 
User avatar
ugvm'er at heart...

Joined: 4th Mar, 2010
Posts: 22256
American Nervoso wrote:
Trooper wrote:
American Nervoso wrote:
Trooper wrote:
American Nervoso wrote:
At this point it's an irrelevance. White police officer shoots black civilian and the powers that be decide that there shouldn't be a trial to find out whether it was lawful or not.

If the perp had been white or the officer had been black? Quite likely a different story.

I'm assuming by powers that be you mean a jury of 12 peers?

What are you talking about? There won't be an indictment, so no trial. So no jury.


I did wonder why you were talking a load of nonsense earlier - you don't even have the most basic of facts correct. :(


Ironic.

That's not irony, you berk. That's just me being wrong.


Of course it is. You call me out over something, and the very argument you use against me, is the failing you have.

Get a haircut.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 11:10 
SupaMod
User avatar
Est. 1978

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 69502
Location: Your Mum
Trooper wrote:
Of course it is. You call me out over something, and the very argument you use against me, is the failing you have.

That's hypocrisy, isn't it?

_________________
Grim... wrote:
I wish Craster had left some girls for the rest of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 11:10 
User avatar
UltraMod

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 55715
Location: California
You need to look up the definition of irony.

Still, you believing that they would come to a fair decision not based on race is fairly naive and a bit laughable. Sorry.

_________________
I am currently under construction.
Thank you for your patience.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 11:16 
User avatar
ugvm'er at heart...

Joined: 4th Mar, 2010
Posts: 22256
Grim... wrote:
Trooper wrote:
Of course it is. You call me out over something, and the very argument you use against me, is the failing you have.

That's hypocrisy, isn't it?


If it was a generic failing, then yes. A specific factual error being used against someone, when it turns out that error is exactly their own error. That's ironic.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 11:23 
User avatar
UltraMod

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 55715
Location: California
Trooper wrote:
Grim... wrote:
Trooper wrote:
Of course it is. You call me out over something, and the very argument you use against me, is the failing you have.

That's hypocrisy, isn't it?


If it was a generic failing, then yes. A specific factual error being used against someone, when it turns out that error is exactly their own error. That's ironic.

No it's not! Look it up.

Anyway, thanks for distracting from my idiocy with this semantic argument. At least I know I'm right this time.

_________________
I am currently under construction.
Thank you for your patience.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 11:25 
User avatar
UltraMod

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 55715
Location: California
Wait, are you Alanis Morrisette?

_________________
I am currently under construction.
Thank you for your patience.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 11:26 
User avatar
ugvm'er at heart...

Joined: 4th Mar, 2010
Posts: 22256
American Nervoso wrote:
You need to look up the definition of irony.


http://www.dailywritingtips.com/what-is ... -examples/

"Is it ironic that someone steps into a puddle and you make fun of them… and the next thing you know – YOU step in one!?
Reader’s Verdict: 94% IRONIC; 6% NOT IRONIC. Final Verdict: IRONIC."

That seems to be what happened to me ;)

American Nervoso wrote:
Still, you believing that they would come to a fair decision not based on race is fairly naive and a bit laughable. Sorry.


:shrug: All I (and anyone) can do is try and put myself in that situation and wonder what I would do. Then extrapolate that out to other people I know and think what they would do.

I can honestly say, I can't think of anyone I know enough to have an opinion on (even including every single person on Beex), that I believe wouldn't do their best in that situation to come to the best decision.
Why would I think that people I don't know wouldn't do the same as a whole? What makes me and the people I know different.

If that's a laughable opinion to have and approach to take to things, then laugh away hairball. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 11:28 
User avatar
Paws for thought

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 17154
Location: Just Outside That London, England, Europe
American Nervoso wrote:
Trooper wrote:
Grim... wrote:
Trooper wrote:
Of course it is. You call me out over something, and the very argument you use against me, is the failing you have.

That's hypocrisy, isn't it?


If it was a generic failing, then yes. A specific factual error being used against someone, when it turns out that error is exactly their own error. That's ironic.

No it's not! Look it up.

Anyway, thanks for distracting from my idiocy with this semantic argument. At least I know I'm right this time.

"the full significance of a character's words or actions is clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character."

So yeah. That.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 11:32 
User avatar
UltraMod

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 55715
Location: California
That's dramatic irony, Dave. A literary device.

It would be ironic had I said there had been no jury knowing full well there had been. Of course I had just got confused because there was a decision not to have a trial (and therefore a jury for the murder charge). Not irony.

_________________
I am currently under construction.
Thank you for your patience.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 11:35 
User avatar
ugvm'er at heart...

Joined: 4th Mar, 2010
Posts: 22256
American Nervoso wrote:
That's dramatic irony, Dave.


So, ironic then.

Thanks for clearing that up.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 11:36 
User avatar
UltraMod

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 55715
Location: California
Trooper wrote:
American Nervoso wrote:
That's dramatic irony, Dave.


So, ironic then.

Thanks for clearing that up.

You do realise we're not in a play?

_________________
I am currently under construction.
Thank you for your patience.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 11:37 
User avatar
ugvm'er at heart...

Joined: 4th Mar, 2010
Posts: 22256
American Nervoso wrote:
Trooper wrote:
American Nervoso wrote:
That's dramatic irony, Dave.


So, ironic then.

Thanks for clearing that up.

You do realise we're not in a play?


We're not? I thought you were just here for the comic relief! ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 11:38 
User avatar
UltraMod

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 55715
Location: California
Irony is feigned ignorance. I was not feigning, but thanks for giving me credit for that. :)

_________________
I am currently under construction.
Thank you for your patience.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 11:39 
User avatar
ugvm'er at heart...

Joined: 4th Mar, 2010
Posts: 22256
You're welcome.

Now get a haircut.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 11:40 
User avatar
UltraMod

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 55715
Location: California
But it's ok, most people use it incorrectly, so you're in good company.

_________________
I am currently under construction.
Thank you for your patience.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 11:42 
User avatar
ugvm'er at heart...

Joined: 4th Mar, 2010
Posts: 22256
Ironically, most people who say that most people use it incorrectly, don't know how to use it themselves either. ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: B&B 43
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 11:48 
User avatar
UltraMod

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 55715
Location: California
Trooper wrote:
Ironically, most people who say that most people use it incorrectly, don't know how to use it themselves either. ;)

That's not irony either. Keep trying though. :)

_________________
I am currently under construction.
Thank you for your patience.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 144 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search within this thread:
You are using the 'Ted' forum. Bill doesn't really exist any more. Bogus!
Want to help out with the hosting / advertising costs? That's very nice of you.
Are you on a mobile phone? Try http://beex.co.uk/m/
RIP, Owen. RIP, MrC.

Powered by a very Grim... version of phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.