A 65-year-old man who was knocked off his bicycle by three teenagers on a Pennsylvania trail shot two of them, killing one, police said according to reports.

The Reading Eagle newspaper said the wounded teen, 16, was taken to hospital and the third, aged 15, was taken in for questioning and was later committed to a youth center.

The paper said the mother of the slain boy, 16, asked officials not to release his name until she had been able to tell other members of the family what happened.

The incident happened on the Thun Trail near a bridge over the Schuylkill River, between Reading and West Reading just after noon Wednesday.

Story: Okla. mom won't face charges for shooting intruder
"There was one juvenile who was shot and is deceased [and] another juvenile who was shot and is in surgery," Police Chief Jed Habecker said, according to a report by the WFMZ-TV station.

According to police, the 65-year-old was riding his bicycle when the teens knocked him to the ground, the station said.

Police said two teens then assaulted the man, who drew his gun and shot them.

The man was released by police after they consulted with District Attorney John Adams late Wednesday, WFMZ reported.

Right on.
It's too bad that one of them died, but they deserved to get shot.

Ding an sich Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Right on.
> It's too bad that one of them died, but they
> deserved to get shot.


Nah, it is too bad that one of them lived.

Hopefully the roody-poo families of the dead kids don't sue the senior citizen.

crime don't pay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ding an sich Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Right on.
> > It's too bad that one of them died, but they
> > deserved to get shot.
>
>
> Nah, it is too bad that one of them lived.


If you're going to be a retard, at least be consistant with it. There were THREE assailants, not two. Which two of the three do you wish were dead?

Yet another reason why handguns should be banned.

Guns should be outlawed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yet another reason why handguns should be banned.


So that only criminals have access to them?

Or are you naive enough to think that the illegal arms trade can be shut down?

Ding an sich Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> crime don't pay Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Ding an sich Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Right on.
> > > It's too bad that one of them died, but they
> > > deserved to get shot.
> >
> >
> > Nah, it is too bad that one of them lived.
>
>
> If you're going to be a retard, at least be
> consistant with it. There were THREE assailants,
> not two. Which two of the three do you wish were
> dead?


OK retard, riddle me this. How could someone who wasn't shot end up dead in this scenario. To a person with half a brain, it is readily apparent that the other person that should be dead is the other person that got shot. This shouldn't have to be explained to anyone with 4th grade reading comprehension skills.

crime don't pay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ding an sich Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > crime don't pay Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Ding an sich Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Right on.
> > > > It's too bad that one of them died, but
> they
> > > > deserved to get shot.
> > >
> > >
> > > Nah, it is too bad that one of them lived.
> >
> >
> > If you're going to be a retard, at least be
> > consistant with it. There were THREE
> assailants,
> > not two. Which two of the three do you wish
> were
> > dead?
>
>
> OK retard, riddle me this. How could someone who
> wasn't shot end up dead in this scenario. To a
> person with half a brain, it is readily apparent
> that the other person that should be dead is the
> other person that got shot. This shouldn't have
> to be explained to anyone with 4th grade reading
> comprehension skills.


What the fuck are you even talking about? There is nothing that needed 'to be explained', nor did I ask you to explain anything. I was only pointing out that you are retarded - nothing more.

Oh, and when someone calls you a 'retard', calling them a 'retard' in return really isn't a good come-back...

he SHOT two of them not THREE of them
so it's TOO bad that ONE of TWO who got shot DIED and not BOTH
get it now RETARD?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!

stfu ding Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> he SHOT two of them not THREE of them
> so it's TOO bad that ONE of TWO who got shot DIED
> and not BOTH
> get it now RETARD?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!


If you would re-read my original post (to which you had initially replied), you will realize that at no point did I refer specifically to the two that had been shot - instead I refered to 'them'. It was neither stated nor implied that I was speaking only about the two that had been shot.

So, shut the fuck up, dumbass.

Ding an sich Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> crime don't pay Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Ding an sich Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > crime don't pay Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Ding an sich Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > Right on.
> > > > > It's too bad that one of them died, but
> > they
> > > > > deserved to get shot.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nah, it is too bad that one of them lived.
> > >
> > >
> > > If you're going to be a retard, at least be
> > > consistant with it. There were THREE
> > assailants,
> > > not two. Which two of the three do you wish
> > were
> > > dead?
> >
> >
> > OK retard, riddle me this. How could someone
> who
> > wasn't shot end up dead in this scenario. To a
> > person with half a brain, it is readily
> apparent
> > that the other person that should be dead is
> the
> > other person that got shot. This shouldn't
> have
> > to be explained to anyone with 4th grade
> reading
> > comprehension skills.
>
>
> What the fuck are you even talking about? There is
> nothing that needed 'to be explained', nor did I
> ask you to explain anything. I was only pointing
> out that you are retarded - nothing more.

And in doing so, you provided ample evidence of your retardation. While it really didn't need to be pointed out, I felt the need attempt to set you on the right track. Call it my charitable act for the day benefitting those with lower intelligence.

> Oh, and when someone calls you a 'retard', calling
> them a 'retard' in return really isn't a good
> come-back...

Well, that depends. When the original insulter (you) uses the term "retard" and in doing so reveals himsef to be a retard by such use, it is very appropriate.

Look, I can't help that you don't have the intelligence or education to understand how to comprehend very simple concepts, but in the future, I will try and dumb down my statements when addressing you.

Quick question for Ding an sich.

Is English your first language?

If not, I have probably been too harsh on your lack of comprehension of it and for that I apologize.

crime don't pay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, that depends. When the original insulter
> (you) uses the term "retard" and in doing so
> reveals himsef to be a retard by such use, it is
> very appropriate.

So, using the word 'retard' necessitates that one actually be retarded? That would make the both of us retarded. Next time make sure you comprehend what you're saying before you say it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/26/2012 04:28PM by Ding an sich.

Ding an sich Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> crime don't pay Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Well, that depends. When the original insulter
> > (you) uses the term "retard" and in doing so
> > reveals himsef to be a retard by such use, it
> is
> > very appropriate.
>
> So, using the word 'retard' necessitates that one
> actually be retarded? That would make the both of
> retarded. Next time make sure you comprehend what
> you're saying before you say it.


Holy cow, there is no way English is your first language. OK, let's work this one out for you. Hopefully it will help you with your English studies.

See, you used the word retarded. The problem was that by using it, you were revealing that you didn't understand the very simple concept that was being presented to you. That concept was the fact that because only two people were shot there was only one other logical person who could have died in that scenario. Not only did you fail to understand that ever so simple logic, you actually decided it would be prudent to insult someone while demonstrating your complte lack of understanding.

When I used the term, it was completely appropriate as you had clearly demonstrated your inability to grasp simple concepts. It was probably inappropriate of me to say that as it appears after reading each of your posts, English is probably not your first language.

crime don't pay! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That concept was the fact
> that because only two people were shot there was
> only one other logical person who could have died
> in that scenario.


You are misusing the words 'concept', 'fact', and 'logical'.
I think it is YOU that needs refamiliarization with the English language.


And precisely what part of that story prohibits him from having been capable of shooting all three of them? Did he only have two bullets? Was he firing a deringer? Did his gun jam?

He could have easily shot all three, had he wished to do so. He didn't because it was unnecessary - they were unarmed, and, at that point, presented no further threat.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/26/2012 04:22PM by Ding an sich.

There were three assailants, one was shot and killed; one was shot and lived; one was taken for questioning.

 

Ding an sich Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And precisely what part of that story prohibits
> him from having been capable of shooting all three
> of them?

Capability and the facts of the situation are two different things. He was capable of shooting himself in the scuffle as well, but because he didn't there is no point in bringing it up just like there is no point in bringing up the person who was NOT shot (unless you are desperate).

> Did he only have two bullets? Was he
> firing a deringer? Did his gun jam?

Again, doesn't matter. He only shot two. All other hypotheticals and theories are irrelevant.

> He could have easily shot all three, had he wished
> to do so. He didn't because it was unnecessary -
> they were unarmed, and, at that point, presented
> no further threat.

How do you know any of what you just wrote? None of that is apparent from the article posted above. I don't deal in conjecture, I deal in the facts presented. You should try that sometime.

friskydingo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There were three assailants, one was shot and
> killed; one was shot and lived; one was taken for
> questioning.


Interestingly, Ding an sich seems to believe that somehow the guy who wasn't shot could have died! LOL!

crime don't pay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ding an sich Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > And precisely what part of that story prohibits
> > him from having been capable of shooting all
> three
> > of them?
>
> Capability and the facts of the situation are two
> different things. He was capable of shooting
> himself in the scuffle as well, but because he
> didn't there is no point in bringing it up just
> like there is no point in bringing up the person
> who was NOT shot (unless you are desperate).
>
> > Did he only have two bullets? Was he
> > firing a deringer? Did his gun jam?
>
> Again, doesn't matter. He only shot two. All
> other hypotheticals and theories are irrelevant.
>
> > He could have easily shot all three, had he
> wished
> > to do so. He didn't because it was unnecessary
> -
> > they were unarmed, and, at that point,
> presented
> > no further threat.
>
> How do you know any of what you just wrote? None
> of that is apparent from the article posted above.
> I don't deal in conjecture, I deal in the facts
> presented. You should try that sometime.


Have you forgotten your original argument? You had claimed that it would have been impossible for all three of the assailants to have been killed. Now you're pointing out that even the victim himself could have been killed.
Which is it?

If I were to guess, Id say the third one who was not shot fled after the other two were.

 

Ding an sich Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> crime don't pay Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Ding an sich Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > And precisely what part of that story
> prohibits
> > > him from having been capable of shooting all
> > three
> > > of them?
> >
> > Capability and the facts of the situation are
> two
> > different things. He was capable of shooting
> > himself in the scuffle as well, but because he
> > didn't there is no point in bringing it up just
> > like there is no point in bringing up the
> person
> > who was NOT shot (unless you are desperate).
> >
> > > Did he only have two bullets? Was he
> > > firing a deringer? Did his gun jam?
> >
> > Again, doesn't matter. He only shot two. All
> > other hypotheticals and theories are
> irrelevant.
> >
> > > He could have easily shot all three, had he
> > wished
> > > to do so. He didn't because it was
> unnecessary
> > -
> > > they were unarmed, and, at that point,
> > presented
> > > no further threat.
> >
> > How do you know any of what you just wrote?
> None
> > of that is apparent from the article posted
> above.
> > I don't deal in conjecture, I deal in the
> facts
> > presented. You should try that sometime.
>
>
> Have you forgotten your original argument? You had
> claimed that it would have been impossible for all
> three of the assailants to have been killed. Now
> you're pointing out that even the victim himself
> could have been killed.
> Which is it?


Oh man, Engrish is tough for you. I pointed out another stupid hypothetical that was as pointless as your "he could have shot all three" hypothetical.

Right now, you have got to be trolling because nobody can be this dense.

crime don't pay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ding an sich Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > crime don't pay Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Ding an sich Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > And precisely what part of that story
> > prohibits
> > > > him from having been capable of shooting
> all
> > > three
> > > > of them?
> > >
> > > Capability and the facts of the situation are
> > two
> > > different things. He was capable of shooting
> > > himself in the scuffle as well, but because
> he
> > > didn't there is no point in bringing it up
> just
> > > like there is no point in bringing up the
> > person
> > > who was NOT shot (unless you are desperate).
> > >
> > > > Did he only have two bullets? Was he
> > > > firing a deringer? Did his gun jam?
> > >
> > > Again, doesn't matter. He only shot two.
> All
> > > other hypotheticals and theories are
> > irrelevant.
> > >
> > > > He could have easily shot all three, had he
> > > wished
> > > > to do so. He didn't because it was
> > unnecessary
> > > -
> > > > they were unarmed, and, at that point,
> > > presented
> > > > no further threat.
> > >
> > > How do you know any of what you just wrote?
> > None
> > > of that is apparent from the article posted
> > above.
> > > I don't deal in conjecture, I deal in the
> > facts
> > > presented. You should try that sometime.
> >
> >
> > Have you forgotten your original argument? You
> had
> > claimed that it would have been impossible for
> all
> > three of the assailants to have been killed.
> Now
> > you're pointing out that even the victim
> himself
> > could have been killed.
> > Which is it?
>
>
> Oh man, Engrish is tough for you. I pointed out
> another stupid hypothetical that was as pointless
> as your "he could have shot all three"
> hypothetical.
>
> Right now, you have got to be trolling because
> nobody can be this dense.


Your constant ad hominem attacks are only make you seem less and less logical, especially considering that my English comprehension and articulation are perfect. I would strongly advice you stop.

Your original post read "Nah, it is too bad that one of them lived."
Of the three assailants, two lived.
Now will you shut the fuck up?

Ding an sich Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> crime don't pay Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Ding an sich Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > crime don't pay Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Ding an sich Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > And precisely what part of that story
> > > prohibits
> > > > > him from having been capable of shooting
> > all
> > > > three
> > > > > of them?
> > > >
> > > > Capability and the facts of the situation
> are
> > > two
> > > > different things. He was capable of
> shooting
> > > > himself in the scuffle as well, but because
> > he
> > > > didn't there is no point in bringing it up
> > just
> > > > like there is no point in bringing up the
> > > person
> > > > who was NOT shot (unless you are
> desperate).
> > > >
> > > > > Did he only have two bullets? Was he
> > > > > firing a deringer? Did his gun jam?
> > > >
> > > > Again, doesn't matter. He only shot two.
> > All
> > > > other hypotheticals and theories are
> > > irrelevant.
> > > >
> > > > > He could have easily shot all three, had
> he
> > > > wished
> > > > > to do so. He didn't because it was
> > > unnecessary
> > > > -
> > > > > they were unarmed, and, at that point,
> > > > presented
> > > > > no further threat.
> > > >
> > > > How do you know any of what you just wrote?
>
> > > None
> > > > of that is apparent from the article posted
> > > above.
> > > > I don't deal in conjecture, I deal in the
> > > facts
> > > > presented. You should try that sometime.
> > >
> > >
> > > Have you forgotten your original argument?
> You
> > had
> > > claimed that it would have been impossible
> for
> > all
> > > three of the assailants to have been killed.
> > Now
> > > you're pointing out that even the victim
> > himself
> > > could have been killed.
> > > Which is it?
> >
> >
> > Oh man, Engrish is tough for you. I pointed
> out
> > another stupid hypothetical that was as
> pointless
> > as your "he could have shot all three"
> > hypothetical.
> >
> > Right now, you have got to be trolling because
> > nobody can be this dense.
>
>
> Your constant ad hominem attacks are only make you
> seem less and less logical, especially considering
> that my English comprehension and articulation are
> perfect.

LOL. Says the guy who unleashed the term "retard" early on. All of a sudden you abhor ad hominem attacks? Excuse me while I scoff.

> I would strongly advice you stop.

Really? You "stroongly advise" me? What happens when I don't listen? Are you about to get all internet tough guy?

> Your original post read "Nah, it is too bad that
> one of them lived."

Exactly. You can cut and paste it, now if only you could understand it in context. Do you know what context is?

> Of the three assailants, two lived.

Of the three assailants, two were shot. The one NOT shot was not in fatal danger.

> Now will you shut the fuck up?

Hmmm. Doesn't look like it, does it.

How about you? Are you going to shut the fuck up or will you post again with some more stupidity?

Guns should be outlawed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yet another reason why handguns should be banned.

Yeah if he had used a twelve gauge with buckshot he would have blown all three toads out of their socks. Sucks to be them but at 65 he could have easily been killed by a kick to the chest or head. He deserves a medal.

crime don't pay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Your constant ad hominem attacks are only make
> you
> > seem less and less logical, especially
> considering
> > that my English comprehension and articulation
> are
> > perfect.
>
> LOL. Says the guy who unleashed the term "retard"
> early on. All of a sudden you abhor ad hominem
> attacks? Excuse me while I scoff.

What, the...two? maybe three times I called you a retard or dumbass?
Calling you a name a few times certainly doesn't constitute "constant ad hominem attacks".


> > I would strongly advice you stop.
>
> Really? You "stroongly advise" me? What happens
> when I don't listen? Are you about to get all
> internet tough guy?


No... Once again, your lack of comprehension and critical analysis is causing you trouble. I was advising that you stop your (unfounded) ad hominem attacks, as they make you appear illogical. 'What happens' when you don't listen is you continue to appear progressively less logical. It was not intended to be a threat. This is the internet - not a dive bar.


> > Your original post read "Nah, it is too bad
> that
> > one of them lived."
>
> Exactly. You can cut and paste it, now if only
> you could understand it in context. Do you know
> what context is?


Yes, I do know what the context was. You were replying to my post. MY POST was the context. As I have already pointed out, my post did not specifically refer to the two assailants that were shot. Since you were replying to me, and did not specifically identify any of the pronouns you used, it would follow that your 'them' refered to the same subject as my 'them'.
I'm simplifying this excessively here - do you understand yet?


> > Of the three assailants, two lived.
>
> Of the three assailants, two were shot. The one
> NOT shot was not in fatal danger.
>
> > Now will you shut the fuck up?
>
> Hmmm. Doesn't look like it, does it.
>
> How about you? Are you going to shut the fuck up
> or will you post again with some more stupidity?


You are REALLY in no place to be accusing anyone else of 'stupidity'.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/26/2012 05:03PM by Ding an sich.

Dirty Harrys grandad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Guns should be outlawed Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yet another reason why handguns should be
> banned.
>
> Yeah if he had used a twelve gauge with buckshot
> he would have blown all three toads out of their
> socks. Sucks to be them but at 65 he could have
> easily been killed by a kick to the chest or head.
> He deserves a medal.
Attachments:

Uber...this hazing seems to be rite of passage for the new guys. It can be entertaining, but it usually devolves into something like "meet me outside". Don't let it get to you or it will drive you crazy.

Ding an sich Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>> > LOL. Says the guy who unleashed the term
> "retard"
> > early on. All of a sudden you abhor ad hominem
> > attacks? Excuse me while I scoff.
>
> What, the...two? maybe three times I called you a
> retard or dumbass?
> Calling you a name a few times certainly doesn't
> constitute "constant ad hominem attacks".

What does? You stepped into the batter's box swing your "retard" stick from the get go. Don't get all pissy when someone calls you out for being stupid. Also, I didn't think asking you if English was your second language constituted an ad hominem attack. Given your lack of understanding that is going on here, I really don't think you can blame me.

> No... Once again, your lack of comprehension and
> critical analysis is causing you trouble. I was
> advising that you stop your (unfounded) ad hominem
> attacks,

I thought you were "adviCing" me? Which is it?

You have demonstrated that the ad hominem approach is not unfounded. Someone, such as yourself, who has clear trouble understanding and expressing the English language can easily be considered to be either stupid or recently exposed to the language.

> as they make you appear illogical. 'What
> happens' when you don't listen is you continue to
> appear progressively less logical. It was not
> intended to be a threat. This is the internet -
> not a dive bar.

Then don't offer advise, or was it advice?

> Yes, I do know what the context was. You were
> replying to my post. MY POST was the context.

Ahh, so this is the source of your confusion. Your post was in response to the original post, and that, my English learning friend, is the context. Everything after that is in response to it.

> As I
> have already pointed out, my post did not
> specifically refer to the two assailants that were
> shot.

The original post did. Anyone who read it (well, excluding you) understood that.

> Since you were replying to me, and did not
> specifically identify any of the pronouns you
> used, it would follow that your 'them' refered to
> the same subject as my 'them'.

No, it wouldn't, no matter how much you would like it to.

> I'm simplifying this excessively here - do you
> understand yet?

To be honest, given your lack of mastery of the English language and your inability to correctly identify the proper context here, you will have to excuse me if I have trouble following your convoluted logic.

> You are REALLY in no place to be accusing anyone
> else of 'stupidity'.

OH, I am and this most recent post of yours more than proved that point. Thanks.

crime don't pay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Yes, I do know what the context was. You were
> > replying to my post. MY POST was the context.
>
> Ahh, so this is the source of your confusion.
> Your post was in response to the original post,
> and that, my English learning friend, is the
> context. Everything after that is in response to
> it.
>
> > As I
> > have already pointed out, my post did not
> > specifically refer to the two assailants that
> were
> > shot. Since you were replying to me, and did not
> > specifically identify any of the pronouns you
> > used, it would follow that your 'them' refered
> >to
> > the same subject as my 'them'
>
> The original post did. Anyone who read it (well,
> excluding you) understood that.



The only one that has been confused by my post is you. As I've already said, YOU were replying to (as well as fucking QUOTING) ME. YOU used MY PRONOUN. As I did not quote any pronouns from the original post, MY POST was the ORIGINAL CONTEXT for that PRONOUN. Since you did not further identify said pronoun as refering to the two that were shot, it retained the same antecedent as it did when I first used it.



Now, A/S/L/IQ/Education-level?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/26/2012 07:46PM by Ding an sich.

Ding an sich Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only one that has been confused by my post is
> you.

I assume you have pretty much come to the conclusion that I am the only person reading your posts at this point, so your statement os probably correct.

> As I've already said, YOU were replying to
> (as well as fucking QUOTING) ME.

You continued choice of profane language makes you appear less and less logical.

Here is a simple one for you. When you posted, to what set of information were you referring to when you wrote, "It's too bad that one of them died, but they deserved to get shot."

Does your them and they match up? Do they refer to the same people? Do you see where this is leading? I bet you do and you are kicking yourself for it?

> YOU used MY PRONOUN.

First, you don't own pronouns. Second, your use of said pronouns is confusing at best.

> As I did not quote any pronouns from the
> original post, MY POST was the ORIGINAL CONTEXT
> for that PRONOUN. Since you did not further
> identify said pronoun as refering to the two that
> were shot, it retained the same antecedent as it
> did when I first used it.

Again, your use of the pronouns they and them is completely unclear.

When you said "they" got shot? Only two were shot, right? Only one of the the "they"/"them" could have died. ie. the only person that could have died is one of the two that got shot. Absent any use of proper noun by you, that is the only correct interpretation.

> Now, A/S/L/IQ/Education-level?

Sorry, I don't think you are my type.

crime don't pay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ding an sich Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The only one that has been confused by my post
> is
> > you.
>
> I assume you have pretty much come to the
> conclusion that I am the only person reading your
> posts at this point, so your statement os probably
> correct.
>
> > As I've already said, YOU were replying to
> > (as well as fucking QUOTING) ME.
>
> You continued choice of profane language makes you
> appear less and less logical.


Vocabulary and logic are entirely separate.


> Here is a simple one for you. When you posted, to
> what set of information were you referring to when
> you wrote, "It's too bad that one of them died,
> but they deserved to get shot."
>
> Does your them and they match up? Do they refer
> to the same people? Do you see where this is
> leading? I bet you do and you are kicking
> yourself for it?


"It is too bad that one [the one that died] of them [the three assailants] died, but they [the three assailants] deserved to get shot."

Just because all three of them did NOT get shot, does mean that the 'they' does not refer to all three. Why would I suggest that two of them deserve to be shot more than the other?


> > YOU used MY PRONOUN.
>
> First, you don't own pronouns. Second, your use
> of said pronouns is confusing at best.

No, I don't 'own' pronouns, but I did set the antecedent.

Yes, pronouns will always be more confusing than nouns. Such is the nature of pronouns.


> > Now, A/S/L/IQ/Education-level?
>
> Sorry, I don't think you are my type.

Pity... We were getting along SO well...

cheating on me already?!

Jokes, jokes.

Just jokes.

Ding an sich Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just because all three of them did NOT get shot,
> does mean that the 'they' does not refer to all
> three. Why would I suggest that two of them
> deserve to be shot more than the other?

It doesn't matter what you are suggesting as we are dealing with a factual situation that happenend in the past where only TWO people got shot.

> No, I don't 'own' pronouns, but I did set the
> antecedent.

The antecedent was unclear as explained above. You cannot look at your statement in a vacuum. You were clearly referring back to (antecendent) the individuals in the article.

> Yes, pronouns will always be more confusing than
> nouns. Such is the nature of pronouns.

Particularly when you attempt to use them.

> > > Now, A/S/L/IQ/Education-level?
> >
> > Sorry, I don't think you are my type.
>
> Pity... We were getting along SO well...

Sorry to upset you. If you were attempting to gain a superior edge after I posted the responses to your request, I assure you that you would be sorely disappointed. Besides, the questions and responses are completely irrelevant and I assure you that you would have been forced to lie once you saw my response.

crime don't pay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ding an sich Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Just because all three of them did NOT get
> shot,
> > does mean that the 'they' does not refer to all
> > three. Why would I suggest that two of them
> > deserve to be shot more than the other?
>
> It doesn't matter what you are suggesting as we
> are dealing with a factual situation that
> happenend in the past where only TWO people got
> shot.


No. 'DESERVED' is not 'factual'. We're talking about the conjunctive, not indicative.
All three of them DESERVED to get shot. Two of them DID get shot. One of them DIED.

This is not complex English. Based upon your previous criticisms of my own English writing skills, I would expect you would be familiar with something this basic.
(Though, in all fairness, both the past indicative and the past conjuctive form of 'to deserve' are the same, making it ever-so-slightly less obvious)

Ding an sich Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> crime don't pay Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Ding an sich Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Just because all three of them did NOT get
> > shot,
> > > does mean that the 'they' does not refer to
> all
> > > three. Why would I suggest that two of them
> > > deserve to be shot more than the other?
> >
> > It doesn't matter what you are suggesting as we
> > are dealing with a factual situation that
> > happenend in the past where only TWO people got
> > shot.
>
>
> No. 'DESERVED' is not 'factual'. We're talking
> about the conjunctive, not indicative.
> All three of them DESERVED to get shot. Two of
> them DID get shot. One of them DIED.

It cannot be taken out of its timeframe. Had you reversed your phrasing of the sentence, you might have half a leg to stand on, but alas, you didn't.

> This is not complex English.

It appears to be for you.

Alright, whatever, man. This is pointless. You seem to be just looking for an argument. You misunderstood a pronoun - it happens - but to react like this is just ridiculous.

Ding an sich Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Alright, whatever, man. This is pointless. You
> seem to be just looking for an argument. You
> misunderstood a pronoun - it happens - but to
> react like this is just ridiculous.


Alright, whatever, man. This is pointless. You seem to be just looking for an argument. You don't know how to use pronouns correctly - it happens - but to react like this is just ridiculous.

PS- You strayed off the high road long ago. You can't attempt to be on it now.

PPS- I know you are disappointed I didn't give you the opportunity to embellish your academic credentials.

crime don't pay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ding an sich Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Alright, whatever, man. This is pointless. You
> > seem to be just looking for an argument. You
> > misunderstood a pronoun - it happens - but to
> > react like this is just ridiculous.
>
>
> Alright, whatever, man. This is pointless. You
> seem to be just looking for an argument. You
> don't know how to use pronouns correctly


My English is perfect, and my use of pronouns infallible. You were better off sticking with ad hominem than making things up...



> PPS- I know you are disappointed I didn't give you
> the opportunity to embellish your academic
> credentials.



I neither have nor need any special 'credentials' to recognize illogic and miscomprehension of the English language.

Ding an sich Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My English is perfect, and my use of pronouns
> infallible.

Hardly. Their deficiencies have been addressed ad nauseum here. To reiterate, your pronouns cannot stand alone without necessarily referring back to the original post. Everyone understand what you meant to say, you just didn't accomplish it successfully.

> You were better off sticking with ad
> hominem than making things up...

First, you strongly "advice" (sic) me to stop the ad hominem attacks, now you are telling me that I was better off making them? Contradict much?

> I neither have nor need any special 'credentials'
> to recognize illogic and miscomprehension of the
> English language.

Perhaps, but you might want to look into obtaining some instruction on how to craft sentences so that they read more coherently and actually convey what you mean them to convey.