david1two3 wrote: » It occurs to me the only people incapable of moderating are those that want to, same for politicians, cops and leaders in general.
david1two3 wrote: » Mudder teresa
Ikky Poo2 wrote: » It is ill-formed, nasty and judgemental to comment on the potential evil of ANYONE'S character when you've never met them or heard anything recent concrete about them. Half of your posts admit to wild specualtion, for Heaven's sake!
voodoo_child wrote: » They had a fukced up childhood, and ended up doing fukced up things
david1two3 wrote: » There is no obvious sign of you baring anything in mind other than the drivelish writing of hate filled hack stabbers and reinventing yourself as Mudder teresa in the last one or two posts doesnt work
as having the thinking you do be showing here implies that your real problem is trying to distance yourself from the reality of the situation, that being that you were just as capable as these 10 year old boys of doing the exact same thing and if you make enough noise about it you would seem to be a caring person, whereas you really arent caring at all, as demonstrated by your demonising of both boys ,one more than the other. As all of these behaviour patterns are generally done subconsciously there is no need to utter front page denials to me or anyone else,just stop generalising on such an important subject
and then backtracking like Neil Kinnock on the beach when you really are not equipped to know of the suffering of children and how they bring their experiences to the adult world.
It occurs to me the only people incapable of moderating are those that want to, same for politicians, cops and leaders in general.
Kenny 5 wrote: » As an evil child I threw the remote control into the fire. I now realise that a remote control is very valuable asset to a person. So yes, evil children can change.
david1two3 wrote: » There is no obvious sign of you baring anything in mind other than the drivelish writing of hate filled hack stabbers and reinventing yourself as Mudder teresa in the last one or two posts doesnt work as having the thinking you do be showing here implies that your real problem is trying to distance yourself from the reality of the situation, that being that you were just as capable as these 10 year old boys of doing the exact same thing and if you make enough noise about it you would seem to be a caring person, whereas you really arent caring at all, as demonstrated by your demonising of both boys ,one more than the other. As all of these behaviour patterns are generally done subconsciously there is no need to utter front page denials to me or anyone else,just stop generalising on such an important subject and then backtracking like Neil Kinnock on the beach when you really are not equipped to know of the suffering of children and how they bring their experiences to the adult world. It occurs to me the only people incapable of moderating are those that want to, same for politicians, cops and leaders in general.
Dudess wrote: » As is the case with many people. Yes, they were 10, not 3. You and Ikky Poo2 sure talk a load of bleeding-heart shyte - telling me I have absolutely zero right to criticise them is just laughable. .
AngryBadger wrote: » I mean usually I prefer to sit back and let people defend themselves (and we all know Dudess is more than capable of doing that) but this defies logic. On what are you basing the assertion that DUdess was jsut as capable of what these kids did when she was 10? Did you know both those children and Dudess personally at that time? Because if you didn't then you're guilty of exactly what you just accused Dudess of. I'm not aware of Dudess having referenced the exact sources of her information, so I have to ask how you know what her sources are? Are you also familiair with DUdess on a personal level? Because asserting that she has no familiarity with the suffereing of children or how they carry that with them to adulthood indicates you do. As to your remark about moderators, politicians and so on. I always find the people who make those kinds of remarks are the very people who bemoan their situation when things go wrong but are never willing to get the finger out and actually do anything about it. The moderators do their best with a lot of trying individuals like yourself, if you'd prefer a more receptive ear to your vitriol in future I suggest you refrain from making things personal.
Dudess wrote: » Right so, poor, misunderstood, abandoned-by-society children - a society that drove them to torturing a small boy to death. Is that better?
david1two3 wrote: » bactracking
david1two3 wrote: » shes not capable of defending herself as I obvious by what she says and how she says it
david1two3 wrote: » Any ten year old is capable of killing a two year old.
david1two3 wrote: And what I accuse her of is in no way related to whether I know them or her. As for you telling me how I should write, I wont have that now or ever ,if they want rid of me I wont lose any sleep. I already know I dont want to know her
david1two3 wrote: My remarks about mod, polititchens, cops etc are based on very obvious facts
david1two3 wrote: and you trying to undermine me on that wont work now or ever.
david1two3 wrote: Its always easy to see when your on the money as peeps come in with all sorts of valueless crepe to try and side swipe your position. Your logic defier needs adjusting or possibly switching off. As for sources ,they are irelevent as rubbishs source is a valueless as the rubbish itself. In reality your argument is a clueless as hers but I think that is more likely to propel you than quell you. Saying it like it is is obviously to much for you but if thats what rots your boat,fine thers loads more available for opinions like yours and hers. Your second last paragraph is the funniest ,standing up for those who stand idly by while lining their pockets blatantly and publicy castigating all around them for their .............yawn zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Dinter wrote: » Ah I see the bleeding heart liberals are in full swing today.
Dinter wrote: » Moving on from that I wouldn't see how an event like that couldn't be detrimental to a child's psyche and by taking into account the facts of the case I don't believe they were all there to start with. To sum up I wouldn't trust that they're rehabilitated. Also before the liberals start crying, remember society doesn't trust them either. That's why murderers are only released on licence.
Dinter wrote: » Ah I see the bleeding heart liberals are in full swing today. As far as I can make out Dudess is talking about the children at the time of the offense and thus asking us to extrapolate from that on whether a child who'd commit such an unspeakable act could be rehabilitated from it. Therefore she is correct in her description of them at the time of the event.There is no reason for you to get up on your high horse and condemn her for it. They did murder a child. Moving on from that I wouldn't see how an event like that couldn't be detrimental to a child's psyche and by taking into account the facts of the case I don't believe they were all there to start with. To sum up I wouldn't trust that they're rehabilitated. Also before the liberals start crying, remember society doesn't trust them either. That's why murderers are only released on licence.
david1two3 wrote: » "unspeakable act" that yee cant stop writing/talking about. The idea that you think liberals have to cry is the sort of statement that stereotypes you in an hilarious but not funny fashion
Ikky Poo2 wrote: » That's why the law courts* decide and not soceity. If society decided, there'd be bodies hanging from every tree in the country.
AngryBadger wrote: » That is 100 % your interpretation of her posts, a great many people, including myself disagree with you. ...can you back this up with anything other than your poorly puntuated swamp drivel? I don't know any 10-year olds that would be capable of taking a child out onto train tracks, throwing bricks at them, shoving batteries up their anus, and then leaving them on the tracks to be hit by a train, do you? Actually by dint of the language you chose to use your post is very much a personal attack. No-one mentioned wanting rid of you, paranoid much? So obvious that you can't/won't cite them? Well if I based my arguments on my own personal fantastical view of the world then it would probably be impossible for people to undermine me too. I'm not sure what your point is here, to be fair it might not be because you don't have one, it might be because of your poor spelling, your lousy english, the fact that you seem to have something against full stops, or the fact that you (apparently) dozed off partway through a paragraph explaining how you wouldn't bother defending your points.... Which I guess would indicate that you neither there wherewithal nor the bottle to back up anything you say.
Dinter wrote: » Guarantee there'd be less crime. . .
david1two3 wrote: » You ,of course have a lot of bottle, its apity its empty. A rageaholic like yourself is funny for a while and then it becomes tehedious, my english is brilliant, so much so that it has you changing toupes by the minute, I cite life as my source horse, if you get one you can too. Im begining to enjoy this as it is more obvious than at first I thought that you cant bear something about this or that or whatever, but I has hard a guess it will remain a mystery.
Dinter wrote: » Man, you've the sort of typing, grammar and spelling skills that I'd expect to see from a person who spent his formative years in a prison or some sort of Juvenile home where school was definitely not on the agenda because it might interfere with the constant barrage of psych tests. Oh. Wait a minute. . .
david1two3 wrote: » Im waiting, it may be some time if ever before I read anything from you that is A, funny, B, relevent, C, designed to harm but being so ridiculous and irelevent as to be like my hamster, dead.
david1two3 wrote: A rageaholic like yourself
david1two wrote: tehedious
david1two wrote: my english is brilliant
david1two wrote: I cite life as my source horse
david1two wrote: but I has hard a guess it will remain a mystery.
Dinter wrote: » This is a full stop for use when you end a sentence = . This is a comma, it is like a pause so your readers can take a breath = , This is an apostrophe. it takes the place of the letter you remove = ' Use a capital or big letter to begin a sentence i.e A or B or C etc. It's considered uninformed to cite "life" as a source, except when bragging about experiences in prison.
