Thank you at least you are consistent.
As for #2, I think the police working security did just that!
Congratulations, you've pointed out that idiot is consistent, and consistently wrong and stupid. Can we get back on topic here?
That's not what I got out of his responses to my clarifications.
My understanding is that he agrees with the police shooting the gunmen,
and if anyone had attacked him, he would have gotten them first or tried to.
The only things he added
1. He thought it would be better if the gunmen went DIRECTLY after Pam Geller, and that she get these guys herself.
He is saying SHE should be responsible, and not endanger other people including the police if SHE were the main instigator.
2. He is also adding that HE would also hold HIMSELF equally responsible for provoking such an attack, if he had done what Pam Geller did.
So he is consistent. He is NOT negating any of the responses to the gunmen and the attack.
He is saying he would take it further by holding Pam Geller personally responsible to the level he would hold himself in such a situation.
So he is consistent, he is ADDING more responsibility and he is NOT taking away or negating how the gunmen were handled. He is asking for MORE responsibility on prevention, and he is holding HIMSELF to the same standards he asks.
Given the fuller context of what
Asclepias is ultimately saying, I have no problem with that.
I only have a problem with both of you calling each other idiots over failure to communicate these deeper details.
You're both fine with me, but just failed to clarify with each other, and then resorted to namecalling which is below both of you. Thanks
rhodescholar Thanks
Asclepias!