Thread: Non Constructive Post Only Posted to Cause Controversy

Originally Posted by Cordite

@systolic,

You appear certain the accused guy has a FAL. That's not apparent from the posted article.

What part of "If he had a licence" was not clear?

Originally Posted by systolic

What part of "If he had a licence" was not clear?

yes you definitely did use "IF"

How about this:

If he had no licence would he still be considered a scumbag until he's proved to be a scumbag in court of law or will his non-scumbag status be revoked?

If the allegations are true, then he is certainly not the first non-licence holder shitbag to supply guns to shitbags.

Fixed it for you @systolic, notice how I used "IF"

Originally Posted by 300CALMAN

yes you definitely did use "IF"

How about this:

If he had no licence would he still be considered a scumbag until he's proved to be a scumbag in court of law or will his non-scumbag status be revoked?

If the allegations are true, then he is certainly not the first non-licence holder shitbag to supply guns to shitbags.

Fixed it for you @systolic, notice how I used "IF"

Nice of you to answer questions directed to Cordite for him.

Originally Posted by systolic

Nice of you to answer questions directed to Cordite for him.

No problem Lee. But they weren't really questions just more trolling right?

Originally Posted by systolic

Nice of you to answer questions directed to Cordite for him.

Hi @systolic,

I did not realise you were directing the question to me as you'd not inserted @Cordite.

Anyway, I actually read quite well. To quote your post:

Systolic: "IF he had NO licence would he still be considered a scumbag until he's proved to be a scumbag in court of law or will his non-scumbag status be revoked?"

This first sentence has an "if" which concerns a negative, "if he had no license". Your default assumption thus appeared to be that he had a FAL, though that could at a stretch be taken to be ambiguous if it was stated on its own.

Systolic: "If the allegations are true, then he IS certainly not the first licence holder to supply guns to shitbags".

This, your following sentence includes an "IS", which logically implies the guy is a FAL holder as you see it (as there is no mention of allegations / accusations of him being a FAL holder).

So, you clearly imply the accused is a FAL holder. Based on what? Does Airport Security get special briefings?

Originally Posted by Cordite

Hi @systolic,


So, you clearly imply the accused is a FAL holder.

I have no idea if he has a licence. Perhaps a forum member from Northland might know him and can comment.

Or someone could make a Privacy Act request to find out.

Surely your not looking for someone from the Quote”peanut gallery” to look for this info???.....bound to be tainted and twisted when presented,......

Originally Posted by systolic

I have no idea if he has a licence. Perhaps a forum member from Northland might know him and can comment.

Or someone could make a Privacy Act request to find out.

If Systolic works for airport security then that would confirm many of my beliefs about airport security

Originally Posted by 308

If Systolic works for airport security then that would confirm many of my beliefs about airport security

Nope

Originally Posted by Tommy

Nope

I with others assumed he was a Lawyer.

I now know that to be a bit off

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by R93

I with others assumed he was a Lawyer.

I now know that to be a bit off

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Yes but apparently he has studied law which makes him 10x smarter than the rest of us