Thread: Non Constructive Post Only Posted to Cause Controversy

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?