Agatha Christie's Paige discussion.

[Guest]

I'm just saying - somebody pulls a gun on you, there's a reason for it.

She was asking for it, Your Honour.

[stumobir]

I know a couple of guys that worked with him and partied with him when he was doing the indies between his wwe stints. From what they told me, it sounds like he's got a beak that would put Daniella Westbrook to shame.

[Scott Malbranque]

 

Dragging it slightly back on topic - it does seem odd that both have been suspended within 24 hours of each other. Same drug?

 

 

Aye Carbunkle, that uncharted observation is going to deflect attention away from your attesting to every gun victim warranting an attack on them.

Think before you type, sir. Merciful hour...

[PowerButchi]

 

 

Hehe.

I'm just saying - somebody pulls a gun on you, there's a reason for it.

 

 

 

Yep, like all those American high school kids murdered over the years.

 

Different situations, however I feel this is probably a discussion for another time or place.

 

It's a discussion that you actually started with that bizarre statement, so partake in it. Justify that quite frankly insane view of yours, or admit you're wrong.

[IANdrewDiceClay]

Best thing is, it wasnt even Sin Cara who pulled the gun on Del Rio. It was someone else who happened to be with Sin Cara at the time.

 

And that guy was actually Puerto Rican.

Edited August 18, 2016 by IANdrewDiceClay

[Snitsky's back acne]

 

 

 

Hehe.

I'm just saying - somebody pulls a gun on you, there's a reason for it.

 

 

 

Yep, like all those American high school kids murdered over the years.

 

Different situations, however I feel this is probably a discussion for another time or place.

 

It's a discussion that you actually started with that bizarre statement, so partake in it. Justify that quite frankly insane view of yours, or admit you're wrong.

 

Okay, fair enough.

 

I feel the two scenarios are vastly different as I said and am in no way saying every gun victim has 'warranted' an attack on them, that's taking a statement and both distorting and enhancing it to make an agenda where there is not one (not that that is anything new on the internet).

I said 'reason' why it happens, not justification.

 

In the school shootings example given the perpetrators were mentally ill and any 'justification' they had (apparent 'revenge', 'God told me to do it' etc) was warped and deluded. Did the victims deserve it? Of course they didn't, how ridiculous. However, there was a REASON for it (the nutters felt persecuted and excluded, the shooters had been sat in a dark room reading extremist doctrine etc). It may be a ludicrous and stupid reason to a rational mind but there was a reason they did it. Not justification, no excusing it, but a reason.

 

In an individual situation, the likes of Person A pulling a gun on Person B, there will again be a reason for it (again, to clarify, a REASON, not a justification). Person A has said something Person B does not like, Person A was looking at Person B's other half etc). Dumb, stupid shit that clearly does not warrant or justify getting shot...but a reason. In Person B's mind they were disrespected or angry.... bullshit stuff but in their stupid head, a reason.

 

I am not aware of any scenario where somebody has randomly pulled out a gun and waved it in somebody's face or shot somebody and when asked why gone 'M' eh, no reason'. Maybe I need to get out more?

 

So, everybody jump down from your high horses, I was not justifying or warranting people getting shot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Cannibal Man]

I'll be dipped in dogshit if Bertie sticks around any longer than his current deal deems necessary. He'll be the fucking mayor of Preston by Halloween.

[Sphinx]

So in this context, Del Rio having a gun pulled on him by someone travelling with Sin Cara, what are you trying to say? You were originally saying he's a bad influence, then when it was said that it wasn't Del Rio pulling the gun on someone you said that there's a reason guns are pulled on people. And then you say for mass shootings the reason could be they were sat in a dark room reading extremist doctrines for example, which in this case of course doesn't mean the person having a gun being pulled on them has anything to do with it.

 

Maybe he did something to provoke the situation. I don't know, but neither do you so it's silly to say there's a reason for it implying some kind of culpability.

 

As it happens, my mate was being followed a few years back and eventually he turned and asked the group whether they were following him. They said they weren't, and pulled a gun out and asked him what he thought of it, obviously as some intimidation tactic. He couldn't tell whether it was legit or not but he said it looked real enough, and he eventually got away and got to a supermarket and used the staff room until the coast was clear.

[Guest]

I am not aware of any scenario where somebody has randomly pulled out a gun and waved it in somebody's face or shot somebody and when asked why gone 'M' eh, no reason'. Maybe I need to get out more?

You and I clearly don't watch the same documentaries.

 

[Snitsky's back acne]

So in this context, Del Rio having a gun pulled on him by someone travelling with Sin Cara, what are you trying to say? You were originally saying he's a bad influence, then when it was said that it wasn't Del Rio pulling the gun on someone you said that there's a reason guns are pulled on people. And then you say for mass shootings the reason could be they were sat in a dark room reading extremist doctrines for example, which in this case of course doesn't mean the person having a gun being pulled on them has anything to do with it.

 

Maybe he did something to provoke the situation. I don't know, but neither do you so it's silly to say there's a reason for it implying some kind of culpability.

 

As it happens, my mate was being followed a few years back and eventually he turned and asked the group whether they were following him. They said they weren't, and pulled a gun out and asked him what he thought of it, obviously as some intimidation tactic. He couldn't tell whether it was legit or not but he said it looked real enough, and he eventually got away and got to a supermarket and used the staff room until the coast was clear.

I never actually said ADR was a bad influence on anyone, to be fair. I DID say that dodgy things happen in the locker rooms of Mexican wrestling but that only comes from the stories I have heard from wrestlers who have worked there, could be total BS.

 

...and it again seems like the point is being missed. Saying there was a reason why it happened does not imply culpability, only to you or people who want to read something into it and get offended so they can take the moral high ground or have a dig.

 

Was there a reason your mate had a gun pulled on him? Sure, to the dickheads who did it! In their heads they were probably trying to be 'hard' 'or 'cool' by being intimidating - THAT was their reason. Is it a justification? No. Did he do anything to warrant or provoke it? No, but a reason why something happens and the justification for it are two separate things.

 

I did not say 'In my opinion there is always a justification to why people get shot/have a gun pulled on them' - then I would agree with Butch that statement is clearly insane. If you disagree, fair enough - we (supposedly) live in a democracy where different views can be expressed and debated but, Christ, some of the conclusions people have jumped to here based upon what they 'think' I was saying are just ridiculous.

 

 

 

 

[Chest Rockwell]

Why are you bothering with all this stupid semantics and back pedaling? Why not just say you said something dumb?

 

Punk Step said he thought it was unfair that everyone was calling ADR the bad influence. I said I thought he had priors, and then you implied it was fair to say he was the bad influence because he was in mexican and he pulled a gun on Sin Cara. And then you said your point stands because he was involved in an incident where a gun was pulled on him.

 

If you actually re-read the whole conversation you are clearly in the wrong here. Just admit it so we can all move on.

Edited August 18, 2016 by Chest Rockwell

[PowerButchi]

 Christ, some of the conclusions people have jumped to here based upon what they 'think' I was saying are just ridiculous.

 

If you don't word your point well then you can't blame people for thinking you mean what it would look like most people to mean. It's nothing to do with wanting to be offended and have a dig. You communicated your original point (if that's what it actually was, I'm dubious) terribly. That's your fault, not theirs.

Edited August 18, 2016 by PowerButchi

[Snitsky's back acne]

Why are you bothering with all this stupid semantics and back pedaling? Why not just say you said something dumb?

 

Punk Step said he thought it was unfair that everyone was calling ADR the bad influence. I said I thought he had priors, and then you implied it was fair to say he was the bad influence because he was in mexican and he pulled a gun on Sin Cara. And then you said your point stands because he was involved in an incident where a gun was pulled on him.

 

If you actually re-read the whole conversation you are clearly in the wrong here. Just admit it so we can all move on.

'Stupid semantics'? I was asked to clarify a point and I did. 'Back-pedaling' - no, I am not doing that. I am explaining my point because clearly some people are missing it or reading something into it other than what was intended.

You want to move on? In fairness, I actually wanted to move on right at the start rather than get into this whole discussion - not because I wanted to dodge the issue or felt I had made a stupid statement but because inevitably these things just descend into a whole back and forth (as it has) and is a complete waste of time for everybody involved.

I just want to clarify, as I did in my previous post, that you used the word 'imply' in reference to what I posted - 'You implied it was fair'. No. I didn't - and therein lies the problem with written text on a screen. You believe I said, or implied, one thing. I didn't. I have clarified what the intent behind what I posted was. If you don't believe that's the truth, fair enough. I can do nothing about that. If you want to believe that I am 'wrong' and you are right, cool. Go ahead.  

 

Now, unless anybody else wants to go 'You're only saying this so you don't have to admit you are wrong!' - shall we really all just move on?

[FLips]

You're only saying this so you don't have to admit you are wrong.

[Chest Rockwell]

;

I just want to clarify, as I did in my previous post, that you used the word 'imply' in reference to what I posted - 'You implied it was fair'. No. I didn't - and therein lies the problem with written text on a screen. You believe I said, or implied, one thing. I didn't. I have clarified what the intent behind what I posted was. If you don't believe that's the truth, fair enough. I can do nothing about that. If you want to believe that I am 'wrong' and you are right, cool. Go ahead.

 

Now, unless anybody else wants to go 'You're only saying this so you don't have to admit you are wrong!' - shall we really all just move on?

Well, it's what everyone inferred regardless of whether or not you meant to imply it. And if you take away that implication, then your post was a completely pointless and stupid non sequitur.

 

So let's assume you're happy with that as the most favourable outcome for you. Shall we all just move on?

Edited August 18, 2016 by Chest Rockwell