World's most polite robber

Amazon wrote:

For someone who has never been a victim of an armed robbery, that you would actually judge the victim and suggest that if he was afraid for his life (a natural reaction BTW) he does not have humanity, is incredible.

================

Where exactly did I imply that it was not possible for the clerk to have a composite of the two reactions, inner and/or outer?

In the past, I said "I am not a monotheist," and you chose to assume that meant "I am an atheist."

And today, you translated my last post as "The clerk cannot both have humanity and be afraid."

Honestly, you need to take a step back and think before you write, and quit making assumptions about what others are thinking.  You could have asked for clarification of what my thinking was, but instead you chose to see black and white and assume that I could only fathom one or the other.

I think it'd be best if you stopped responding to anything I write here, and I'll do the same for you.  We can co-exist, but you should not be turning threads that involve many people into flame wars.  This is just plain silly.

Sir GH wrote: "Where exactly did I imply that it was not possible for the clerk to have a composite of the two reactions, inner and/or outer?"


I can only go by what you write, and if you only write one or two sentences, you can't blame me for misinterpreting you. What you said was pretty clear, but if you have a problem with my interpretation, then explain to me why my interpretation was incorrect. Regardless, don't blame me when you should have made it clearer.

"In the past, I said "I am not a monotheist," and you chose to assume that meant "I am an atheist." "

No comment. I am not going to enter those discussions again.

"And today, you translated my last post as "The clerk cannot both have humanity and be afraid." "

You wrote 'right, so I'm not going to assume that every human being in this world would react the same to being robbed. Maybe this clerk had a shred of humanity too, and knew the guy wasn't going to pull the trigger.' Which is all you wrote.

How else am I meant to interpret that?

You know, instead of blaming me for misinterpreting you, perhaps you could ask youself why did I do so? You should have made yourself clearer, as it's not my responsibility to read your mind.

"Honestly, you need to take a step back and think before you write, and quit making assumptions about what others are thinking."

Excuse me? You are giving me advice? This is ridiculous!

I don't need any advice from you on thinking before I write and on making assumptions about other people. When it comes to those two things, you are the pot calling the kettle black!

"You could have asked for clarification of what my thinking was, but instead you chose to see black and white and assume that I could only fathom one or the other."

Actually, I don't see things in black and white. That's your area. I simply don't think, in this case, that being destitute is an excuse for pointing a loaded gun in someone's face.

As for asking for a clarification, no, it's not my responsibility to do so. I do so in some cases, but I am not obligated to do so. You made a post, and if you don't want people to misinterpret you, you should have been worded it differently, or expanded upon your thoughts.

However I 'choose' to see the world (which is not in black + white) is irrelevent. You can't just write a couple of sentences, and then blame the reader because they weren't able to read your mind and misinterpreted you.

"I think it'd be best if you stopped responding to anything I write here, and I'll do the same for you."

Nobody is forcing you to respond to me. I tend to respond to whichever posts I feel inclined to repond to, but if you want to ignore me, then go right ahead.

"We can co-exist, but you should not be turning threads that involve many people into flame wars. This is just plain silly."

No, you do not get to blame me. Somebody is turning this into a flame war, however it is not me. The fact that you not only don't respond to the meat of my posts, but also only respond to me, suggests it is YOU who is turning this into a flame war, and for you to think that I am is more than silly. It is absurd!

To be perfectly honest, I don't know if I will be responding to many of your future posts. The religion discussion, the vegatarianism discussion, as well as a couple of other ones, have shown that attempting to have discussions with you, where I have a different opinion, is a terrible idea.

Amazon wrote:

"You made a post, and if you don't want people to misinterpret you, you should have been worded it differently, or expanded upon your thoughts."

==========================

I don't owe you or anyone at this forum a damn thing.  What is it with people and their sense of entitlement these days?  I'm expressing myself as I feel fit, not as someone else feels I should.

If you don't like the extent of which someone expresses themselves, then that's your problem.

On a lighter note, methinks you're taking this forum business a wee bit too seriously.

Sir GH wrote: "I don't owe you or anyone at this forum a damn thing."


Incredible. You blame me for 'misinterpreting' you, which is not my problem or fault at all, and when I suggest that you take measures to correct it, you throw out this "I don't owe you or anyone at this forum a damn thing" crap!

BTW, two can play this game. In your previous post you said "You could have asked for clarification of what my thinking was", well my response is I don't owe you or anyone at this forum a damn thing!

"What is it with people and their sense of entitlement these days?"

I agree. In what possible world do you honestly think that you are entitled to my seeking a clarification from you?!!! Furthermore, in what possible world do you think you are entitled to blame/criticise people for misinterpreting you, which is not their fault in the slightest?!!! Finally, what makes you think that you are entitled to give others advice on thinking before they write and making assumptions about other people?

You are so hypocritical it's not funny!

"I'm expressing myself as I feel fit, not as someone else feels I should.'

Then don't blame other people if they misinterpret you!

"If you don't like the extent of which someone expresses themselves, then that's your problem."

Similarly, if you don't like that I misinterpreted you, then that's your problem.

"On a lighter note, methinks you're taking this forum business a wee bit too seriously."

If this was real life, I would strangle you.

After this pathetic post of yours, in which you started with the 'damn thing' BS, you are telling me that I'm taking this too seriously?!

GH, have a look in the mirror and get over yourself! You are an absolute hypocrite and you have no self-awareness at all. Pathetic!

Amazon wrote:

"you have no self-awareness at all."

Once again judging a person's overall psyche based on posts on a forum.  Well done.

"If this was real life, I would strangle you."

Resorting to threats?  Wait, I'm the one who takes forums too seriously.  My mistake..

Sir GH wrote: "Once again judging a person's overall psyche based on posts on a forum. Well done."


Based on your posts to me, I am in an absolute position to judge you, and I do not see any self-awareness from you at all.

BTW, I'm not judging your 'overall psyche based on posts on a forum', I'm judging the complete lack of self-awareness you display in our 'discussions'. This may shock you, but there is actually a difference.

"Resorting to threats?"

Have a read of your post, and perhaps you will get a sense of why it is so infuriating. If you honestly were surprised that I would make a comment like that (and to call it a threat is an absolute joke), then you are either a troll or you lack all awareness of how to engage in a civilised discussion.

"Wait, I'm the one who takes forums too seriously. My mistake.."

Yes, you are. Who was it who went off the rails with the 'I don't owe you or anyone at this forum a damn thing' BS?

Not to interrupt the conversation, but I noticed something odd about the robbery:

When the guy was robbing the store, he had his gun out (like most robbers), but he wasn't really pointing it at the clerk. It looked like he was just keeping it in site (so the clerk could see it), but it seems different than most other gun robberies (where the criminal would point it right in your face).

I take back what I wrote earlier (about me agreeing with Amazon, not about me disagreeing with Bob). We've all got different views on this matter, and we've all got the right to express what we think about it without having to offend each other.

BTW, I owe a huge apology to every forum member who's had to read page after page of my own arguments with other members. Seeing Bob and Amazon today made me realise how uncomfortable it is for those who are not involved in the row, maybe even more than for those who are.

Sebastian wrote: I take back what I wrote earlier (about me agreeing with Amazon, not about me disagreeing with Bob). We've all got different views on this matter, and we've all got the right to express what we think about it without having to offend each other.

BTW, I owe a huge apology to every forum member who's had to read page after page of my own arguments with other members. Seeing Bob and Amazon today made me realise how uncomfortable it is for those who are not involved in the row, maybe even more than for those who are.
======

Respect points for that post.

Gregsynth wrote: "Not to interrupt the conversation, but I noticed something odd about the robbery:


When the guy was robbing the store, he had his gun out (like most robbers), but he wasn't really pointing it at the clerk. It looked like he was just keeping it in site (so the clerk could see it), but it seems different than most other gun robberies (where the criminal would point it right in your face)."

That's true, however I wonder what would have happened if the clerk had said no. However even if he was not going to use it, he still brought it to intimidate the clerk. That kind of intimidation can be extremely traumatic.

Gregsynth wrote:

When the guy was robbing the store, he had his gun out (like most robbers), but he wasn't really pointing it at the clerk. It looked like he was just keeping it in site (so the clerk could see it), but it seems different than most other gun robberies (where the criminal would point it right in your face).
=======================================

Again, the net is full of armed robberies where the gun is not pointed in somebody's face.  Perhaps that's done to conceal the crime in progress, or perhaps it's because the robber is not really capable of gun violence in the end.  So what. We're not discussing a crime of murder, attempted murder or aggravated assault with a weapon.   We're discussing armed robbery.  In a strange way this kind of 'polite' robbery has extra layer of irritating cowardice that a straight up in your face robbery lacks.  He wants to hold a gun on you, he wants your money, but he wants you to think he's a real nice guy.  These kinds of criminals invariably have old, often long, small time criminal histories and a trail of previous victims.  I forget who said 'dishonesty, cowardice and duplicity are never impulsive', but it's true.  I'm sure most of these complex souls are completely redeemable humans beings, but until they stop robbing people at gunpoint as a life management strategy, they will continue to create innocent victims and volatile and unpredictable situations to which society has to respond.

Sir GH wrote:

Once again judging a person's overall psyche based on posts on a forum.  Well done.
==========================

Without in any way intending to attach myself to Amazon's diagnosis, you don't think long time participants on a forum can have a pretty strong sense of each other?  I mean you've said over 11,000 things.  Many, many of those things are going to have been revealing in one way or another.

Very good point.  But said diagnosis is a skewed interpretation of a very select few things I've said.

Amazon thinks I'm a jerk, and I think Amazon is a jerk.  In real life, neither are likely true.

Sorry - I should have been more clear that I was thinking about your statement entirely out of the context of your e-fight, though your point is well taken.  I just thought it was a bit of a misstatement to too greatly minimize the information embedded in and behind the written word.  I just find the subject kind of generally interesting.

It is a bit of a double-ended pointy stick, I think.  One can go as far as saying "this is just the internet, you don't really know me".  And yet, in a forum like this one, we're actually totally capable of cultivating whatever image of ourselves that we want to.  I learned this the hard way when that idiot Nester started following me from thread to thread complaining about things I'd said.  "I wasn't being serious", I complained; but how was he to know?  

On the point of Amazon thinking Bob's a jerk, or vice versa; there is the possibility that this isn't just a breakdown in communication, or two people 'not really knowing each other'.  They might genuinely feel that way if they'd met in person and been stuck talking to each other at a party.  These things happen.  I've been stuck talking with enough university students to know this painfully well.