Kicking Off In Tottenham

[SpineyNorman]

If there's an absence of context then one might be alluding to one. In this case it's fair to assume an allusion to the recent riots.

zzzz

What the fuck are you on about? I asked you to point out where anyone excused rioting and looting and you post this meaningless bollocks Are you a bit "special"?

 

[SpineyNorman]

Oh, sorry, in that case fuck off and find it yourself.

I can't, because it's not there. Which was my point, soft lad.

 

[Santino]

If there's an absence of context then one might be alluding to one.

Epic.

 

[faux pas]

What the fuck are you on about? I asked you to point out where anyone excused rioting and looting and you post this meaningless bollocks Are you a bit "special"?

Oh, the irony!

 

[butchersapron]

If there's an absence of context then one might be alluding to one. In this case it's fair to assume an allusion to the recent riots.

zzzz

Hello.

 

[faux pas]

Epic.

Epic, my arse!

 

[ViolentPanda]

You can't allude to trainers being nicked by rioters without the whole context of mass looting and arson. Of course, that would be belittling what's happened over the past few days and hence reactions to it, which was my point, of course.

Did arson accompany every incidence of looting, or vice versa? If not then your "point" is flawed, and you're merely conflating events to make a point.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Oh, the irony!

Please do point out the "irony".

 

[faux pas]

Did arson accompany every incidence of looting, or vice versa? If not then your "point" is flawed, and you're merely conflating events to make a point.

Separate everything into disparate acts if you will but together they form a context.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Epic.

"Heaven's Gate" was an epic.

It was also shite.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Separate everything into disparate acts if you will but together they form a context.

Together they can form many different contexts, depending on how you interpret them.

 

[butchersapron]

"Heaven's Gate" was an epic.

It was also shite.

Lies. One of the most underrated films ever.

 

[Santino]

Epic, my arse!

Is one alluding to one?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Lies. One of the most underrated films ever.

I fell asleep during it, therefore I arbitrarily decided it was shite.

(I don't generally fall asleep during films, even really bad ones)

 

[faux pas]

Together they can form many different contexts, depending on how you interpret them.

Right, and people don't tend to react to some raw platonic-esque conception of theft of trainers, in a 'thieving scumbag' kind of way, do they?

 

[faux pas]

Is one alluding to one?

I would reply to this, but I don't believe you know what 'allude' means.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Separate everything into disparate acts if you will but together they form a context.

What is this thing they call context? Is it a bit like the socio-economic context in which these riots have taken place? Kids with no future, who are constantly told you should be judged on what you own? Who are told you are nothing unless you have all the right gear? Gear that is well beyond their means and will likely remain so? Combined with a police force that constantly lies to them and treats them like animals? Kids who have no viable political outlet for their concerns? Like that?

I thought it went without saying but I'll spell it out to you, since your mental faculties are clearly lacking: I haven't once condoned looting or arson, not once - I won't because I don't approve of people burning working class people out of their homes or frightening vulnerable people. But I can understand some of the reasons why it happened. When people have serious, legitimate grievances and no legitimate political outlet through which to express and remedy them this is what happens - it's ugly, it's incoherent, it's offensive and it's not really any help to anyone.

 

[SpineyNorman]

I'm dead clever, me. I'll just keep insulting people - that's a great substitute for actual argument!

LOL

 

[Santino]

If there's an absence of context then one might be alluding to one.

Go on then, tell us what it means when one alludes to one.

 

[faux pas]

What is this thing they call context? Is it a bit like the socio-economic context in which these riots have taken place? Kids with no future, who are constantly told you should be judged on what you own? Who are told you are nothing unless you have all the right gear? Gear that is well beyond their means and will likely remain so? Combined with a police force that constantly lies to them and treats them like animals? Kids who have no viable political outlet for their concerns? Like that?

I thought it went without saying but I'll spell it out to you, since your mental faculties are clearly lacking: I haven't once condoned looting or arson, not once - I won't because I don't approve of people burning working class people out of their homes or frightening vulnerable people. But I can understand some of the reasons why it happened. When people have serious, legitimate grievances and no legitimate political outlet through which to express and remedy them this is what happens - it's ugly, it's incoherent, it's offensive and it's not really any help to anyone.

Good speech. Wrong person.

 

[faux pas]

Go on then, tell us what it means when one alludes to one.

When one alludes to a context, one refers to the context without talking about it directly.

 

[Streathamite]

I would reply to this, but I don't believe you know what 'allude' means.

ah yes your usual trick when you're stumped for a proper answer - sneer at the other persons alleged lack of intelligence.
you keep doing that, and it's pathetic

 

[SpineyNorman]

I'm struggling to see what "point" you're making here now faux pas, other than that you're an arrogant twat with delusions of adequacy - you're making that point loud and clear.

 

[faux pas]

ah yes your usual trick when you're stumped for a proper answer - sneer at the other persons alleged lack of intelligence.
you keep doing that, and it's pathetic

Not so. Read through the preceding relevant posts.

Also, for the record, being as some seem to be blissfully unaware of their own style of engagement:

Seriously, are you blind, or just a tad simple-minded?

 

[Santino]

If there's an absence of context then one might be alluding to one.

When one alludes to a context, one refers to the context without talking about it directly.

So, if I may paraphrase, when there's an absence of context, one might be referring to the context.

Are you SURE you know what 'allude' means?

 

[faux pas]

I'm struggling to see what "point" you're making here now faux pas, other than that you're an arrogant twat with delusions of adequacy - you're making that point loud and clear.

Actually, I don't know what your beef is. You've been barking up the wrong tree. It's not about you, okay. You can calm down now.

 

[faux pas]

So, if I may paraphrase, when there's an absence of context, one might be referring to the context.

Are you SURE you know what 'allude' means?

The sole absence of the context doesn't infer that one IS alluding to one, only that one might be.

Now I'm convinced you don't know what 'allude' means.

 

[Streathamite]

Also, for the record, being as some seem to be blissfully unaware of their own style of engagement:

yes, but you've quoted it without the rest of the post I wrote, which does contain a fair and reasoned argument.
not really cricket that, is it?
(In truth, that was a temperamental over-reaction by me, which I shouldn't have said, but it was in response to a staggeringly dumb post, as anyone can see)

 

[faux pas]

The sole absence of the context doesn't infer that one IS alluding to one, only that one might be.

Now I'm convinced you don't know what 'allude' means.

Actually, that's too ambiguous for you to grasp, let me rephrase:

The sole absence of a context doesn't necessarily mean one is or might be alluding to one. My only point was, given the past few days, it's reasonable to think the poster was alluding to one ('one' being the riots').

 

[SpineyNorman]

Jesus Christ, where did this one come from?