Afraid your logic is flawed

I feel a sadness for those people and their families because of the circumstances - much like I felt some sadness when I saw the faces of a family in a funeral procession that drove by me yesterday. A sadness, not a grieving - that passed away from me pretty quickly as I got on with my life.

Sadness is a human emotion, and it has levels - though clearly not for you

It was not the same level of sadness or emotion that I would have felt had I known the deceased personally, or were the deceased a family member or loved one - that would be grieving

There is though the one major difference between a stranger a few streets away and the strangers who were victims of 9/11 which makes it "different", a concept you seem incapable of grasping.

I never watched the stranger round the corner, or any of the other strangers who die in my town every day.....

die live on TV

Im intelligent enough to know that it's impossible to grieve for someone you don't even know is dead...please don't patronise me. The line in bold I think works well =] as you didn't know any of the 9/11 victims either, surely? You saw a plane, hit a building, and news reporters telling you lots of people had died..you didn't actually know who had died. You felt sad for a number, not for each and all of those people, as yourself said: it's hypocritical to grieve for someone you have never heard of. You'd never heard of any of those people.

I don't remember announcing I was grieving or mourning anyone. I also remember saying that if people should mourn for strangers, they should do so equally =] and not choose anyone over anyone else.

Without the media you wouldn't be remotely aware of anything going on in this world, especially 9/11. Without the media, 9/11 would mean nothing to you [because you never would have heard about it.]...just like those people who died, who never made it to your television, who you said it was hypocritical to grieve for =]

Please, spare me the theatrics..
I haven't contradicted a single point ive made, nor back tracked, or said anything that's confusing. See, this is the problem im seeing, you aimlessly say things to try and "win" the argument but add no substance. I can say you're confusing, mislead, naive, thoughtless, contradicting etc...but without evidence to back it up, it's just plain lies and petty subtle insults.

Lol, please...
Don't judge my entire emotions on life and people, purely on the fact I choose not to feel sadness towards the death of strangers. I have plenty of emotion about things in my life, people in my life, and things that matter to me. Making out im an emotionless person with no understanding of sadness, is just for arguments sake.

And you saw people die live on TV with the 9/11 incident?
Or did you just see a plane, building and fire like the rest of us?
Also, ever heard of CCTV? yes, plenty of "strangers round the corner" filmed being stabbed in the street or beaten by gangs etc. Hence, your point is now void.
[also, I find it funny how you seem to be picking 9/11 over so called local deaths? lives that were around you, and not in a seperate country..which thus proves my point on how people place the order of importance of death, down to which is covered more by the media. As you're obviously implying that dying live on TV makes people more notable.]

CCTV may not be live as you see it, but is a live recording. And you're claiming watching people die live at 9/11 creates some emotion..whereas CCTV shows much more detail the majority of the time, that should create even more emotion if anything.

But still, you seem to be persisting that dying live on television means more, that it makes a difference. Which is exactly what ive been saying =] people picking some deaths over others depending on the depth of media coverage.

Retroman – first of all, let me say that I am not trying to insult you, subtly or otherwise, although you do appear to be insulting me!!

Secondly, and to clarify what I was saying in an earlier post – I cannot feel sorrow over the death of someone who I have never heard of. I cannot grieve for anyone whose death I hear about on the news, although I can feel sadness that someone has lost a life in what is very often a brutal fashion. I do not personally grieve for anybody who died on 9/11, because I did not know anybody who died on that day. However, I do feel sadness that people died in such a horrific fashion (whether it was a government conspiracy, or the terrorist attack that it appeared to be, being killed due to a plane flying into a building must be a horrific way to go).

I cannot personally grieve for every single person that dies, famous or not. You yourself choose not to – as you say, you don’t mourn the death of Diana, and you don’t mourn the deaths of the victims of 9/11 – and that’s your right.

I do feel great anguish and grief over the deaths of people who I have known and cared for, and I feel sadness for other people who have died in a cruel or brutal fashion, whether I have known them or not. But I think that there is a big difference between genuine grief or anguish, and sadness.

I can’t change the world – none of us can, but we can maybe make a small difference. So I prefer to do something practical to try and help people living in certain conditions. I guess you may think it’s hypocritical to help one cause and not another (like giving to one charity and not another).

I know I’m not wording this very well, but what I am trying to say is – there is a big difference between feeling grief and despair at the death of someone who you knew or cared about, and feeling sadness and dismay at the death of people in such a horrific fashion (such as 9/11 and the Tsunami, which examples have already been given).

As for your comments about deaths in the locality where you live (and I know those comments weren’t aimed at me particularly), I am actively involved in trying to make my neighbourhood a better place. As I said in an earlier post, I am more than happy to let you know how I am doing that. But would you then say that I am choosing to help my own neighbourhood and being hypocritical for ignoring other neighbourhoods?

To make my comments about the media clearer – you are correct in that without any media we would never have heard of 9/11 (well, we would have done, but certainly not for a much longer time). However, what I was trying to say, in perhaps a badly worded way, was that I do not need nor trust the media to tell me how I should feel about a particular event, or how upset I should be over a certain matter.

As I said earlier, I was not trying to insult you – it felt rather like the opposite way around! Neither was I using any ‘theatrics’. I have no wish to fall out with you, or anybody else.

First of all, im sorry if it does come across that im trying to insult you...
I just tend not to feel/bother too much about what people say on my computer screen, so I assume it's the same for everyone else. Which might result in me saying more direct things, when perhaps I shouldn't. But none of it was intended to be personal.

And id like to think I can enter a debate and difference of opinions with someone, without it effecting our views on one another too much.
EG. If I argued with a friend about a serious debate, it wouldn't change anything...plus, if there's any topic you're going to have a difference of opinion on, it's usually going to be a serious topic. Which is why these situations always emerge on a "serious debate" forum.

And if you're choosing to help your local community, then im pleased to hear...and when it comes to help, there's a limit on the amount of people you can actually help. So I won't be saying it's hypocritical to choose your area over any other.
But with emotions and sadness towards strangers, you do have freedom of choice to feel for any and all of those people, and aren't limited in any way..so there's a difference.

EG. If you had the money/resources/thoughts/methods to help anyone on the planet, but you only chose some people in your local area, I may ask you why you think they're more deserving? But I wouldn't necessarily be saying you're wrong, because at the end of the day you're helping people.

Anyway, I think it's safe to say the arguments been exhausted and has accomplished as much as it's ever going to...
So i'll just end it with saying that I accept the fact that you can feel sad for a loss of life. Whereas genuine grieving and mourning, or feeling for individuals you don't know, isn't something I can accept [which is what I started my argument about as far as I recall.]

If you can't love people you've never heard of, then I don't see how you can feel any other form of emotion for them either. I think that's a fair point?

Yes, it is a fair point, and I understand what you were saying. I probably worded my initial posts badly, and as I said, I do feel sadness about the events of 9/11 (I only use that example because it's mainly the one we discussed), but I don't feel personal grief or loss, and I don't personally mourn anyone who died that day. I just feel sadness about the day as a whole. I probably didn't explain myself very well.

And I agree - I can argue till the cows come home on a given subject, but it doesn't mean that I wouldn't agree with you on a different subject. I've no doubt that there are many threads where I would be cheering you on!

Once again - you are missing the point of 'logic'. It is a logical conclusion that [popular] and [very large numbers of people] dying will create much sadness. If an actor or actress dies and he or she wasn't very famous or well known, it is logical that the amount of people grieving over that person will be minimal - I don't really need to elaborate further on that fact. The same thing applies to large numbers of people who tragically die in natural disasters, Many do feel grief over that. If the amount of people is much less and in another country- let's say, it will be substantially less.

Your look on lifeforms is laughable. I have given you the truth and you ignore it. Your luxury - of course. I said that [Human beings come first] That is how it is!! I said that [Animals come second] That is how it is!! [Insects exist, so??] That is how it is!! I also see that you assume that because my brain is more advanced - that is reason enough for my conclusions?? NOT TRUE!! It is not about [Brains] - that is your assumption only! I am also not interested in your opinion that the world would survive better without humans. Humans are here, Animals are here, Insects are unfortunately here - but they serve many purposes, agreed!! - so that is handy for us and the animals.
About - [us-humans] causing harm to each other?? We don't all cause harm and insects and animals also fight. We also look after animals - QUITE WELL!!



Did I say that dogs are cute?? [where did I say that??] I didn't actually say that tarantula's are creepy and boring either - [try not to put words in my mouth dear sir]:nono:
I place these life-forms in order, as that is how life is.

KILL AN INSECT - [no crime, legally]
KILL AN ANIMAL - [a crime, but not as serious as human life, legally]
KILL A HUMAN BEING - [PRISON - 20 to life, legally]

is that order enough??



Your views are weird and your priority of [insects] is laughable - as I said earlier. Personally I love [animals] - I shall be visiting a Zoo real soon and have had many times. I also watch many animal programmes and always have. But even so, [human life] is where top priority lies. Care to discuss [Cattle and Foot & Mouth??] - 'How many cows were killed??' That decision didn't take long for the Government to work out - at that time. Humans needed to eat meat safely and this country had to place it's priorities in the RIGHT order.

Shall I say it again, in case you forgot??

Human's First, Animal's Second - Okay!! - If you don't believe me, that is naturally your privilege.

[Your comparison to Handicapped people] I shall ignore. That is laughable and insincere too and certainly not my view or the Governments view - check out the facts first before assuming incorect assumptions and ideas which amount to - very little indeed!!

:rolleyes:



We all have opinions and this post is my opinion and very exact - and in fact, very true! [ ask around - and you will see my pure logic rings true ]

I don't remember arguing about the amount of people that grieve? Ive been arguing about why people grieve, and who they choose to grieve/not to grieve for.

Are you even following what is going on here?
Because the above quote has nothing to do with anything ive said.

LOL
I find you quite hilarious now =] especially that part in bold.
You have given me the truth? what a very narrow minded viewpoint you have. It's clear you're one of these people who think your opinion rules all. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but nobody is entitled to say that their opinion is the "truth" for everyone. Not unless you have proof, or evidence of some unwritten rule that says we're above animals, and animals above insects.

My point about the world surviving if Humans weren't here is that people could argue that Humans are worth less because we cause this planet so much harm. Whereas animals/insects/plants do not. The human race is selfish and self destructive, and on a whole are damaging the very planet they live on.

As for Humans harming eachother, they do so for many reasons such as personal gain, hate, revenge, mental issues, selfishness, greed etc etc. Animals harm eachother for purely protection/food. Which again, could be argued that our lives should be worth less because we have no respect and cause pain to our own kind, and others.

You also tell me that it's nothing to do with brains/capabilties etc.
So tell me, what is it all about then?
What is it that places us above animals, and animals above insects? if it isn't brain power/capabilities/acheivements like I said.

I also see a whole lot of bias. You say "insects are unfortunately here" and place them at the bottom of the chain of importance because you just plain don't like them =] how pathetic. Again, as I said, you think you can announce the "truth" of all living things, purely based on who/what you do and don't like.

You said you love animals, and hate insects...
So I didn't put words in your mouth at all. If you like animals, dogs are animals, and im guessing you like them because they're cute/loyal/affectionate, correct? or do you have some kind of strange obsession for fur/paws or something?

Also, LOL yet again at the bold part.
"I place these life-forms in order, as that is how life is."
Have you any idea how arrogant and scarily god like you're making yourself out to be? what on earth is wrong with you?

That's merely an insight as to the arrogance of man.
And also the ignorance of you.
Laws are made by mankind, for mankind, to organise and rule mankind. They have no place in determining different lifeforms importance. We are the only lifeform capable of creating laws, so that's just pure bias. Laws would be different if animals and insects etc could speak up for themselves..but as we are the only one's who can, we create them at our own conveniance.

I don't recall making a priority of insects? so laugh all you like, at something that never happened =]
Although you do seem to be prioritising animals quite a lot.
Whether you love animals and watch them on television every day is completely irrelevant when discussing the importance of all life forms, and quite frankly I couldn't care less about your personal preferences. That's just you telling me what you like and don't like. You're handling this debate very immaturely.

Seriously though, you're going to a zoo...am I remotely interested? I think not. Please stay on topic.

You ignored the most important part of my post, well done.
And rolled your eyes to it, again...well done.
As for the governments view on mentally handicapped people, what has that to do with me? we're discussing mine and your views, not the governments. Or are you saying you base everything you think on whether the government thinks the same or not? now that is "laughable" as you call it.

Again, as I asked earlier, if it isn't due to brain power/capabilities/acheivements etc then why do you place animals lower? and insects even lower? EXPLAIN. Instead of telling me "I place these life-forms in order, as that is how life is." =/

Basically, if you're saying animals are lower because they can't think to the extent we can, they can't invent, they can't make laws, they can't accomplish as much and they're not capable of as much. Then you are also saying mentally handicapped people are less important, because they [in some cases.] are the exact same.

And again, if you're not saying animals are lower for that reason...please, do tell me why they are =]

You just said your post is your opinion, then told me it is very true and pure logic [If it's true and logic, it becomes FACT and not an opinion.]
You told me that my opinion was false.
You told me I should respect other people's.

So basically, you're saying I should respect yours even though I think it's false, and you can ignore and insult mine because to you it's false.

You're a walking contradiction.

As I said before, you base truth on your own opinion =] which is simple/narrow minded, immature and naive. You also lack any debating skills what so ever if you basically tell people: "It's true because I said so, Okay!!"

*Shakes head*

May I just add that you came up with absolutely no substantial reasons as to why the order is apparently Humans > Animals > Insects. You basically have no argument =] besides constantly saying that your words are "exact" "true" "logic" and telling me to go and "ask around" because everyone will agree with you.

Pitiful, just pitiful.

P.S All the smileys and bold text in the world won't help you win this so called argument =] but you're welcome to keep trying.

Nothing narrowminded actually. I give my opinion and many others will agree - [human beings are more important than animals], but animals are [more important than insects]. Insects are very low down in comparison to the other two. I agree that - as lifeforms/gods creatures/living organisms, we are meant to look upon them as equal. I disagree, many others disagree and the law will also disagree. Priority is obvious. Look what humans have made of this world? Animals are eating, drinking, killing and existing - but what do they do to improve our world? NOTHING!! Nice to see in zoos - and for pets, very nice to have as [mans-best-friend], but that's it.

This opinion is flawed. I have to say that you are assuming that people will be looking through very [negative eyes] indeed? 'have you an axe to grind against the whole human race or something???' It is astounding how you can consider humans selfish and self destructive. I guess that is like saying that [muslims are worse than sikhs] - you are labelling the whole human race - on the whole are like this? that is more than 'narrowminded' - but criticise if you so wish, that is your luxury, as do I

Yes - we are all aware of what you have 'so stated', we are all guilty of something and do some terrible things - however, I still don't see how that applies to this argument? You talk about animals protecting themselves. You talk about animals harming for food. But, animals are not given the choice. Other bigger or aggressive animals will prey on other animals - so they shall protect themselves - the best they can. Their lives depend on that. Also, they need to eat, so they have to hunt for food and food is 'other animals', simply - [the law of the jungle] They are uncivilised and they are animals. Human beings will also kill animals for food - but they are far superior to animals and certainly much more than insects - that is obvious and clear. I know that animal lovers will feel hurt by this opinion, but it is true IMO and many others. I respect your opinion - just not the way you go about criticising mine and some others - but if that is your style, then that is your style.

If my view/opinion is pathetic - then that is your opinion, [one person], WoW! I shall stand on an ant/woodlice/spider/cockroach/earwig and I won't get arrested, slag*ed off, annoyed, upset, nobody will complain - except perhaps you - Retro_man Insects are annoying and pest control and poison are there to get rid of them, do you agree? They are bottom of the scale and will always stay there - unless you wish to have a word with your local MP, who will lobby it in the house of commons - 'in your dreams actually' ha!

I do get a little bias at times, my luxury

I have emboldened the important words in that quote. 'Guessing', yes! yes! yes! it was a guess from your part and I shall venture to say that many dogs and cats are very cute - you are right on that score. I commend how cleverly you worked that out, it would have taken me less than 10 seconds, but??

I have placed many words in 'bold' what is wrong with that? I do that on another forum I am with and within the rules of this forum - which I read BTW, I didn't see a problem - so here we are. You didn't like my emboldening of words then? [oh deary dum-dum, boom boom] - I have placed those life forms in order, as that makes sense to me and others, what do you want me to say Retro?? - exacly what you want to hear?? I don't do that - I do this :bigsmile: My own view of things - is that wrong? is that against your rules? is it too scary god-like? Oh, nothing wrong with me - although I have cut my finger today, but a plaster and some TCP sorted it out, so?

If insects and Animals could do the things humans can, we can only assume that things would be the same. I do take 'your points on board' though, laws are made by mankind and that is very true - thankyou for telling me and others what we already knew, very helpful

A debate in about peoples opinions and forum members trying to win their argument. If you don't like my view and cannot contain yourself, then just opt out. That option is available. I do prioritise animals over insects - I have given my opinion on how life is. As you wish to make your point of view known, I am mimicking you and having my say - is that okay? I do watch animals on tv and I shall say it again okay!

IYO = 'in your opinion'

If your not interested, then that is so, so not cool. Zoo's are good and in there - you will find animals and insects and you can talk about your theory and many there will agree with your side - you could find some friends, but as I differ from your opinions, I am less than that, [am I not] -

Stay on topic - that's a laugh:laugh: I read the topic and it says, 'Was Diana really the peoples pricess?' this extention or [change of subject] is hardly on topic - so practice what you preach before telling me off sarcastically

I couldn't be ars*d

I don't think the governments view has got anything to do with you. I did bring it up, as I felt it relevant to the argument - [the way I view it]

Your really, really looking for further answers? Kind of desperation really?? I look on the pavement and there is a dead ant which I have just killed, 'I don't even think?' - Why don't I think?? because I don't, we don't, nobody does - unless they get into a debate against me and their name is Retroman, who wishes to look at insects as being special, or perhaps special or others thinking that? Your comparison to handicapped humans is [no argument at all], I shall ignore it, like I choose to do. [Animals are less than humans] Human life/existance is far more important.

I can state my opinion any way I choose. I have given you my opinion and I would venture to say, that it rings true and if you asked 100 people, 'If an Animal or an Insect or a Human had to die - place them in priority order', I would venture to say that [Insect would get killed and then Animal next and Humans would be the most important]

I am sitting down Retroman. I don't walk and type, ha!

It shall have to do. Just sleep on it, ha!

P.P.S Thankyou for giving me your permission. It is appreciated and I can't thank you enough. Is it okay for me to answer your reply to this post and I shall try not to get all upset when you say some horrid things about me and my post - as you feel it doesn't quite come up to standard, or?

Your main argument seems to be "lets drag everyone else into this, they'll all back me up"
Stop seeking support from people who aren't here to voice themselves, that's not really going to work is it?

And who exactly said we're improving our world?

We're improving life for humans, that is all.
We're not improving the planet =] I think you're confusing the two. The planet would be in a much better state if we'd never existed.

Some people out there however, are trying to improve the situations that other people caused. EG. People killing Whales for money, then other people trying to save the Whale.

Again, my point still stands...we're not doing anything good for the world, just ourselves =] yet another reason on the list why humans shouldn't take priority.

I notice that whenever I have the opportunity to make a point against you, or prove you wrong, you abuse the line "thats your luxury" =] lol. How funny.

Anyway, I did indeed say the human race as a whole is destructive. I didn't label the entire human race as destructive, just that our total accumalative presence here causes more harm than good.

War, famine, homelessness, murder, beatings, carbon footprints, killing animals for profit, destruction of rainforests and tree/plant life in general and arguably climate change/the O-zone layer, emotional abuse and such like.

And the only people in this world who are trying to stop all those things, are people trying to help put right situations that humans made in the first place.

Yet you're telling me we improve this world?
I think not.
The only thing we do to improve anything, is invent new technology to make human life easier. Human life does not = the world.

Animals aren't given the choice =] well done, exactly my point.
Humans however are given the choice, and thousands upon millions of them have decided to kill/harm other people/animals/life.

Also, you're only arguing that Humans are superior.
Yes we are superior, we've evolved to a point where we can do much more than any other form of life. Superiority doesn't mean more value, just more capability.

A life is a life, whether it can write poetry, play music or do maths equations...it does not matter.
Or are you saying that someone with a low IQ who can't do as much/ isn't as talented as someone with a higher IQ, has a life that is worth less?

Again, superiority does not = more valued life.
Unless you're going to boldly tell me that one person who is superior to another has a more valued life, and should stay alive over the inferior person.

Lol again, I was proven right about you being bias, so out comes the word "luxury." In future, whenever you say the word "luxury" i'll take it as a sign im proving you wrong =]

Also, I am indeed one person, do you expect me to try and transform myself into multiple people? One person still has the ability to prove one person, and many people wrong.

Christopher Columbus is a classic example of this.
He thought the world was round, almost the entire planet thought it was flat. Someone would have told him "I think it's flat, ask anyone!" [just like you.] but still, they were completely wrong. Which just goes to show, whether im one person or not I still have the ability to prove your theories as incorrect.

So the "WoW" comment is void.

"Insects are annoying and pest control and poison are there to get rid of them, do you agree?" - Yes, and guns/ varied weaponary, bombs, hitmen etc are there to get rid of annoying humans, what's your point?

Some humans are annoying, some aren't. Some insects are annoying, some aren't. Hence you have no point.

I think humans cause a lot more annoyance in the world than any other life form actually =] but again, because we are "superior" there's no other lifeform to wipe us out. If there was a superior lifeform to us, perhaps they'd choose to use "pest control" on us also.

I guessed/assumed, and I was right =] which only proves my intuition is good. So I don't see what argument you have there, besides me being right in what I said.

LOL
I placed a sentence of yours in bold myself, then announced I was laughing at the words id bolded. I wasn't laughing at you for making many words bold. You confused the situation =] so i'll ignore that comment due to you not grasping what was going on.

Again, you bring other people into it...people who aren't here to speak up for themselves. I could search for thousands of people who'd agree with me also, but what would be the point in that? Hence why I don't constantly go around saying "other people agree with me so ner" such child like behaviour.

You also said "I place those lifes in order, as that is how life is"
I like how you left out the "as that is how life is" part from your post.

"I place those lifes in order as that is how life is" is saying that it is fact. "THAT IS HOW LIFE IS" = you announcing it as fact. Which it isn't =] because it if was, we wouldn't be debating it.
Again, please stop classing your opinion as fact "truth" "exact" "logic", it's not a good idea.

Thankyou for conveniantly choosing to ignore the point I was making, and claiming that all I said was "men make laws"
Again, very child like.

You said that you were right because of three examples of law you listed, then I proceeded to say that men make those laws at their own conveniance, so you can't base the value of all life on human bias =] please, keep up.

A debate is about people's opinions, correct. It isn't however about whether you watch animals on TV and go to the zoo =] what that has to do with the value of all life I really do not know, but you can persist in reminding me of your hobbies and likings in the middle of a debate if you wish...though it doesn't reflect very well on you.

I don't recall asking what IYO was an abbreviation for.


Zoo's are good? and in there? i'll find friends?
Yes, very immature.

Also, sarcasm = saying something that means the opposite.
"Stay on topic" isn't remotely sarcastic.
You may want to refer yourself to an online dictionary before making such statements.

We aren't directly on topic, but we are discussing life/death and its value. Which is related to Princess Diana dying, as whether she was the people's princess or not depends on how her life was valued in the UK.

"im going to the zoo and like watching animals on television" isn't really the same now is it?

You seem to be able to make lengthy comments about everything else I say =] how conveniant that you can't manage a reply to a point that reveals bad things about your mindframe and the way you look at life.

Again, you insist I said insects are special =] when if anything, I merely said life is equal...I didn't say anything was more special than anything else. So your remark is flawed..infact void.

And you didn't explain why you class life as Humans > Animals > Insects like I asked you to. If you can't explain your opinion, then perhaps you don't know your own thoughts at all.

I suggest you come back when you can actually list reasons as to why you say what you say, rather than just saying it and expecting me to accept it as "logic" / "truth" / "exact."

And once again you dare not address the issue that mentally handicapped people fall under the definition of why you class animals and insects as lower lifeforms..because it would expose that you think mentally handicapped people should die over those who aren't mentally handicapped.

^ I think this is the third time ive said you're child like now.
Children don't have a very good reputation for winning debates.

The very question of 'If an Animal or an Insect or a Human had to die - place them in priority order' is exactly what is wrong with you. That question shouldn't need to be asked, because the person shouldn't go around valuing who's/what life should end over anothers.

Sorry but I refuse to debate in this topic anymore, with people/a person who thinks im someone im not.

Also, you seem to have reposted the same post that the person who has been removed from the site did. So I assume you are that person? but you've stuck "red" on the end of your post.

"Sorry to have to remove your post Retroman aka the_hitman aka the_chosen_one but the person you replied to no longer has any connection with the site and I hate him forever"

I stated in my last post about the fact im not the person you think I am, but unfortunately it has been deleted..which is fully understandable considering the reasons Red Moon listed.

I have no idea who "hit_man" is as I mentioned before, or how much knowledge anyone had of them...but as I said in my deleted post, im more than happy to prove through my IP address/msn/webcam/myspace/friends that I am not this person you seem to have a problem with.

Also, I never have usernames with under_scores in them or any other characters =] because it looks tacky.

If this hitman person and the stillness had any problem with eachother, then just because I had a debate with the stillness doesn't mean im "hit_man"
I said in my deleted post that im more than happy to talk to the stillness in a friendly manner outside of this topic.

Like I said, assuming everyone who disagree's with the stillness is this "hit_man" person is just plain illogical.

You're talking to me about threats, cryptic messages, msn, the police, my friends, people being banned etc etc. Not only have I no clue what you're talking about, but you quite clearly have me confused for someone else and thus are making yourself look a little stupid.

Does anyone else find this thread confusing?!

I find it confusing too. Is that post by jane.stow by the_stillness/nodisharmony or Red Moon? :shrug: :S

It's by someone who's been removed from the forum apparently, their post was here but was deleted. I think Jane is the same person who was removed from the forum.

But yea, im finding it pretty confusing too...
It's gone from an argument on the value of life, to me being accused of being someone else and getting people banned >_<

I really don't know what's going on anymore.

So [whoever it is] is accusing you of being the_hackman??

Extremely. Who’s jane.stow? I don’t get what’s being said by that user either, e.g. Retroman being someone else and GiRTh coming back as nowstheburn or something (which I don’t think is true). As well as who the_stillness is. The thread itself seems to have gone off on a bit of a tangent as well, although it was interesting reading the debates and stuff before.

jane.stow is the stillness/nodisharmony...

So GiRTh is apparently nowsthebturn....

I'm confused....:conf:

And who is Retroman?

Cepb - Yea im being accused of being someone called the_hitman...but since ive only been here a few days ive no idea who that is? but apparently something seems to have gone on between hitman and the_stillness.

Ash - Jane could possibly be the_stillness, im not sure...whoever it is, seems to be getting themselves banned then coming back again and again to cause trouble.

Unfortunately, they seem to be directing that trouble towards me because they think im someone ive never heard of. Which is a little unfair to be honest.

Oh and Retroman is Retroman lol..im Chris =] hi.

Jane.stow is nodisharmony.

Retroman - It's OK... there's a load of weird stuff going on at the moment, but I think we know you're you. :hugesmile:

And is GiRTh nowsthebturn?

and so is the_stillness

Lol, thanks for the vote of confidence...
It's bad enough being mistaken for someone in the first place, without that person being someone everyone seems to dislike!

Im a bit worried though, because there was talk of MSN conversations and the police =/ which is pretty serious. I don't want to be known as someone who's involved in anything like that.

But all I can say, is it appears something has recently gone on between a few members and caused arguments and bans.

I dont know about that one...... I'm not aware of that user.

Its all soooooooo confoosing :hugesmile: