Re: "Survivor of Virginia Tech Massacre Brings Gun Control Message to Maine"

On Nov 30, 3:11 am, RD Sandman <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
Phil Smythe <smy...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote innews:60628609-4d2d-4fa8-8c0e-3edb55140ff5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:



On Nov 29, 2:38 am, RD Sandman <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
Zombywoof <fishwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote
innews:p765f65918hcapgt55ehovgj27l8h
e1...@xxxxxxx:

On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 11:33:54 -0600, RD Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:

Phil Smythe <smy...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:00638977-db25-47db-b901-0e07c35e464e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
om:

On Nov 28, 12:58 am, Zombywoof <fishwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 21:08:11 -0800 (PST), Phil
Smythe<smy...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
 wrote:

<snip>>> Not by getting the hell out of Dodge or hiding under a
desk.
 
That is not
a direct defence by any stretch of your imagination.  It is
an attem
pt to
avoid the confrontation.

You appear to not know what I was referring it. It was an
instance where survivors, one in particular, DID physically
struggle against Cho, they received a battering as he tried to
force a door open, they resisted and Cho gave up. That is
defense, not by getting the hell out of Dodge nor hiding under
a desk.

Liar, liar pants on fire.  Apparently everyone but you knows
that
the
one `76 year old Professor who did attempt to do something by
blocking his classroom door was shot down & killed by Cho.  

If you call that "Surviving" its no wonder you are having such a
hard
time with the word "Loophole".

WHO said I was talking about any 76 year old professor? Looks
like we now all know who the liar is, and it's you!

You were both talking about the same incident.  Since that was an
old professor, it appears you were both talking about the same
thing.

No Phil is talking about the incident that happened in his
imagination.  I'm talking about the one widely reported in numerous
media outlets.  There was only one incident of a semi-direct
confrontation with Cho, it ended in that individuals (and one he
was trying to protect) death.  

Yep, that was the professor in the doorway.  Not quite the same
inciden
t
Phil was referring to.  The difference was in the details.  The profe
ssor
got killed and in the scenario that Phil was talking about a student
named Zach Petkewicz barricaded a door to a classroom that kept Cho
from entering.  You are referring to professor Liviu Librescu.

I was actually referring to Derek O'Dell. Like I said elsewhere, why
is it I don't get to choose who I'm talking about?

What bullshit is that, Phil, that you don't get to choose.  You never
named who you were talking about until now.

It should never have been necessary as it was only referred to on the
edges of the conversation. Peter Franks intimated that the students at
Virginia Tech were defenceless and I queried this, asking"So are you
saying that nobody there could use any form of self-defense (despite
the fact that people did successfully defend themselves)?".

You jumped in this point with "Not confrontationally, they didn't,
unless you feel that getting shot up but surviving your wounds to be
self defense.", to which I responded "As I recall there were people
who defended themselves confrontationally. I believe there was a
confrontation where a shoving match on either side of a door occurred
before Cho gave up and moved on." Notice how I used the phrase "as I
recall", indicating I was aware of such an incident and the broad
details. It was simply meant to illustrate the point I'd made, that
there had been confrontational defence. You came back with "There may
have been but I don't recall it." Fair enough, probably should have
been the end of it, I felt no burning need to go searching for the
finer details, I knew it had happened.

But of course you and ZW didn't let it go. First he wrote, "Liar, liar
pants on fire. Apparently everyone but you knows that the one `76
year old Professor who did attempt to do something by blocking
his classroom door was shot down & killed by Cho.". According to him I
was flat out lying, no question about it. I queried him with "WHO said
I was talking about any 76 year old professor?" because I knew I
wasn't, and I also knew I wasn't lying. He could have asked me which
incident I was referring to if he was that interested, but no, he's
already decided and that I was lying.

You then entered the fray with "You were both talking about the same
incident. Since that was an old"professor, it appears you were both
talking about the same thing.". Where you got that idea from I don't
know because I had already stated I wasn't talking about any 76 year
old professor.

All ZW could come up with to answer your suggestion was "No Phil is
talking about the incident that happened in his imagination". and then
went on a ramble about Liviu Librescu.

You then came back with "Yep, that was the professor in the doorway.
Not quite the same incident Phil was referring to. The difference was
in the details. The professor got killed and in the scenario that
Phil was talking about a student named Zach Petkewicz barricaded a
door to a classroom that kept Cho from
entering."

So first you reckoned ZW and I were talking about the same incident
(Liviu Librescu) and then you reckoned I was talking about Zach
Petkewicz. At this stage both of you were too busy making accusations
about which individual I had referred to, neither of you had actually
inquired. As I said before, you had both determined you knew better
than me who I was talking about. Pity you were both wrong.

Of course according to ZW it's all some lucky guess on my part where I
invented an incident, with broad details and when pressured when madly
Googling to find just such an incident, with the same broad details
and miraculously found one. If you believe that you'll believe
anything.

As for you frothing at the mouth because I accused you, correctly, of
telling me (falsely) who I was talking about, that's a bit rich. If
you want to query me, query me, but don't smugly assume you know it
all, because here you didn't.

Oh, and why didn't I name Derek O'Dell right from the get go? Simply
because a) I couldn't recall his name when I mentioned the incident
and b) I only referred to the incident to show that there was self-
defense, and that should have been sufficient to make my point.
Contrary to your claim I didn't get to choose, I had you and ZW both
proclaiming that I was referring to other incidents as though it was
not in dispute.
.

Relevant Pages