Are you incapable of minding your own business when 2 people are having a conversation that does not include you?
No I’ve been here and it’s everbody’s business here when there is a conversation and especially when you are attacking anybody who has given a response but you don’t agree or are making repeat demands like you do.
Now you answer the question that applies, or don’t. Your turn.
I don’t think you are capable at least in that regard.
We can’t do everything for everybody. It happens. But life goes on.
Look I was talking to Dave! Just because you are in a elevator with 2 people who are having a discussion it does not give you the right to butt in or demand that I answer your question.
If you dont like my post ignore me…but wait, that will give you less potential people tp argue with
Gotta laugh though
The guy who always has to have the last word and will insult people who don’t agree is asking if I can agree to disagree!!!
Hello RIPLEY’S BELIEVE IT OR NOT!
You won’t believe this!
Look I was talking with you earlier as are others. This is not a private chat. So get a clue for once.
It’s okay to agree to disagree with people too.
We are all entitled to our beliefs.
Here’s mine. Most of the time I sure don’t believe YOU. But that’s just my opinion.
Meanwhile check the facts. Larsen is not in the league and I know you are pining for him not for him but for yourself, but good luck with that with the facts irrespective of the judicial result now.
Now you probably don’t get any of that let alone agree, but that’s okay. I understand.
You can also ignore others with whom you clearly don’t agree, so take some of your own medicine for once there Ro.
I will care what you have to say when you can hold a discussion with out your childish name calling when you are losing…You don’t even understand innocent until proven guilty and you want to talk about the judicial system?
Get back to me when you learn to act like an adult and mind your own business
Ignore switch on
Iggy accepted - so long don’t get lost in the dark anytime soon.
I ignore people who only want to argue…l
I ignore people who have weak minds and insult when they have no point to make!
I Ignore people who dont care how stupid their post is they have to have the last word
Know what…I wont ignore you…I think I will enjoy reporting your insults and off topic posts!
So you admit to trolling now? I don’t think that’s a good idea. I recommend you go back to ignore.
Ignoring is trolling
Reporting offtopic is trolling
And you want to discuss the judicial system?
No ignoring is not trolling. Doing what you stated above is trolling. Keep going with your reasoning if you want, but I recommend you discuss offline if you wish.
Doing what?
Do you know what trolling is?
Do you even know what ignore on the form is?
Im done replying to you…
late breaking news
Ottawa Redblacks announce the release of Paolo and ro!1313
I’ll make it as simple as I can Dave. This has nothing whatever to do with your ethnic heritage, nor your life experiences. It simply has to do with two contradictory statements you have made.
First, you said Larsen was a thug and was guilty of beating up a gay person.
Then you said that Larsen was just a witness who didn’t come forward right away, is now a snitch, and did nothing to stop the assault.
Those 2 statements are contradictory, and they cannot both be true. He’s either a thug who beat the guy, or he was a witness to the beating. One or the other.
So which one is the truth and which one is the lie?
I don’t think either was a lie but…
Dave your problem was that Larson was alleged to beaten up a gay man whom you want to pay for his crime! Yes the guilty person SHOULD pay
Ok now it is come out that he is cleared as a suspect and is now a witness, you call him a snitch?
He is helping to bring justice and put the guilty person away for his crimes and now you have a problem with that!
If you are against him for being a snitch, then it means you want the guilty person to go free!
Why?
Does that make sense?
To hate someone for commiting a crime AND to hate the people that make him pay for the crime
Why?
How?
I have a theory, I won’t put it here
[quote="ro1313, post:57, topic:71311"]
...witness, you call him a snitch?He is helping to bring justice and put the guilty person away for his crimes and now you have a problem with that!If you are against him for being a snitch, then it means you want the guilty person to go free!Why?Does that make sense?To hate someone for commiting a crime AND to hate the people that make him pay for the crimeWhy?How?I have a theory, I won't put it here
[/quote]Well in reading what is being said both Dave and Ro do make sense. The problem is and I have not chatted with you guys but want to weigh in. Is Dave unfortunately your comments is a great back peddling I have ever seen and it is a bit funny. Because someone is at an event and a person is assaulted does not make each and every person in the place guilty of the crime. The assault was reported the police investigate gather the information and determine what everyone has stated. After that was done they determine who was the guilty party. Ro is making the point that because you were at the event does not make you guilty of anything. Being a witness to a crime is not being a snitch. What point is it for you to argue the point Ro has made? Dave I am sure you walked into the conversation and sort of slid into one bad comment to the next and tried back peddling. You do know it is okay to be wrong admit and just move on. Ro made very good points.