• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Smokers Shoot Non Smoker (News Item)

Page 2 - Passionate about caravans & motorhome? Join our community to share that passion with a global audience!
Diane, Daughter has just informed me that the nightclub where she wants us to go, has a side door and has been fitted with a large cage for the smokers!! O great we are going to have a great time, me stuck in a cage all night. Trouble is she was not joking. Liz
 
Yep, Allen, you are right, I got it wrong, wasnt listening too closely to the news, just heard he had been shot,,and wrongly assumed he was dead, still no reason to use it as a scoreboard.
 
sorry, Mod,but I think you`ve got this one wrong.

I think Allens original heading rather than being in any way derogatory or flippant, adequately illustrates the disregard for our laws by sections of the populace who believe themselves to be outside any form of structured society.

I also don`t expect you to reverse your decision. That says it all.
 
SPG quite rightly quotes the dictionary regarding the word "sarcasm". Does he not think that allen was being sarcastic or mocking the three thugs who perpetuated the crime. That is exactly how I read it and it seems everyone else did with the exception of Mod 2 although he now admits he wasn't paying attention to the facts.

This censorship does fall in with todays Britain though where the minorities scream foul and rule the roost over the silent majority.
 
"Does he not think that allen was being sarcastic or mocking the three thugs who perpetuated the crime".

No he does not - the title of the original posting suggests sarcasm aimed at non-smokers - not the offenders. (in my opinion).

Had the title said something along the lines of "The only way Smokers can win their argument" or even the reversing the score then I would have taken the sarcasm to be aimed at the 3 thugs who committed the crime.
 
"Does he not think that allen was being sarcastic or mocking the three thugs who perpetuated the crime".

No he does not - the title of the original posting suggests sarcasm aimed at non-smokers - not the offenders. (in my opinion).

Had the title said something along the lines of "The only way Smokers can win their argument" or even the reversing the score then I would have taken the sarcasm to be aimed at the 3 thugs who committed the crime.
Click to expand...
You are nit picking now and scraping the bottom of the barrel. Just have the humility to put your hands up and admit you misunderstood and had got it wrong instead of trying to drag allen down and make him out to be an idiot.
 
"Does he not think that allen was being sarcastic or mocking the three thugs who perpetuated the crime".

No he does not - the title of the original posting suggests sarcasm aimed at non-smokers - not the offenders. (in my opinion).

Had the title said something along the lines of "The only way Smokers can win their argument" or even the reversing the score then I would have taken the sarcasm to be aimed at the 3 thugs who committed the crime.
Click to expand...
I do not recall casting any aspersions over Allens mental capacity.

My comments were in direct response to questions over my interpretation of the title and its intention - and not in any way aimed at Allen or any underlying intention.

There is obviously split opinion over the language used in the title and if my own was so far off the mark why was there a need to change? Mod 2 admitted he got it wrong in terms of the outcome of the event but still maintained the title was disrespectful. I have not read any further postings changing this.

We will therefore have to agree to disagree. That's what makes the world go round.

Allen subsequently stated that offence or soliciting a reaction was not his intention and this we all have to accept. However what if a colleague, friend or acquaintance of the chap shot had read the posting or even someone affected by gun crime? How would they have interpreted it?

I will be the first to agree that political correctness has gone mad but I did not think that the need to consider the impact of our actions on others was also lost. A prime example being the subsequent exchange that followed regarding the ethnic origin of the parties involved.
 
"Does he not think that allen was being sarcastic or mocking the three thugs who perpetuated the crime".

No he does not - the title of the original posting suggests sarcasm aimed at non-smokers - not the offenders. (in my opinion).

Had the title said something along the lines of "The only way Smokers can win their argument" or even the reversing the score then I would have taken the sarcasm to be aimed at the 3 thugs who committed the crime.
Click to expand...
Frank has posted under "A society with double standards" in reference to the post you mention and if you read it you will see sadly that you got it wrong yet again.
 
Frank has posted under "A society with double standards" in reference to the post you mention and if you read it you will see sadly that you got it wrong yet again.
Click to expand...
??????

Well aware that the statement quoted by Frank was wrongfully taken as an expression of opinion having read the exchange that followed before it was deleted.

It was to this I was making reference when I referred to the need to consider the impact of our actions on others. Franks statement was taken as a racist comment when clearly it was not given the caveats in his opening sentence.

This actually proves my point so sadly I am not wrong - I would happily admit if I believed I was. There were no caveats attached to the original posting title or in the body of comments attached. At best the original title was thoughtless, if pre-conceived that would have been something entirely different.

It is clear that the title was open to interpretation. Have you considered that for one moment the title may have had an alternative purpose or just adamant that you are right?
 
Appalling news - the poor guys died.

As to the bleeding heart liberals who say the death penalty is not the answer, well sorry, but crimes like this prove without doubt how little the criminals value human life, and can do secure in the knowledge that the punishment (should they ever be caught) will never fit the crime.

Who would operate the gallows, pull the switch etc?

Form a queue behind me.
 
Hi Angus,

I once started a thread about capital punishment, it was deemed by the mods to be " not a correct subject for a caravan forum.

mind you you would be second in the Q

Val & frank
 
I said a similar thing to Angus recently regarding me offering my services. Maybe that was deleted, I'm not sure. I'm thinking of doing a similar thing that is in vogue at the moment, that is taking the Mods and Haymarket Towers to the Ombudsman to claim my deletions back :O)
 
Well I would let them pray to god that I would not make a mistake and take their head off ( Saddam Hussein ). Mind you I would make sure that it went wrong YES YES YES

suppose this will be deleted to.

Val & Frank

ps Saddams execution was sanctioned by our Goverment so it was OK to pull his head off !!!!!!!!!!
 
My sincere condolences to the family of this poor man,the reason for his death I believe had nothing to do with a silly smoking ban issue,but more of a territorial argument.Either way it did not warrant a loss of a life.R.I.P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Back
Top