PA Kid, 11, Accused of Shooting/Killing Pregnant Step-Mom

imported post

Well, folks. Hank was so concerned about his question in the post just above that he sent me a PM of his exact same question post. I guess to make sure I didn't miss it.

I do have to correct one thing to be fair. I don't know that he feeds on the discord in the news story threads. I only strongly suspect it. So, I was over the top when I phrased it as though he does feed on it when Iresponded to AWDStylez.

However, it is really interesting to note that he seems to only be taking issue with the news story part about being a troll. No denial or dispute from him on the points about needling and baiting others.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

However, it is really interesting to note that he seems to only be taking issue with the news story part about being a troll. No denial or dispute from him on the points about needling and baiting others.

Click to expand...

[Shaking head slowly]

Citizen, Citizen, Citizen....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoqUwyHseg4

imported post

HankT wrote:

Citizen wrote:

However, it is really interesting to note that he seems to only be taking issue with the news story part about being a troll. No denial or dispute from him on the points about needling and baiting others.

Click to expand...

[Shaking head slowly]

Citizen, Citizen, Citizen....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoqUwyHseg4

Click to expand...

ROFLZZZ

Favorited.

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

You then went on to say that it's not healthy discussion because it's "feeding a troll's desires," to which I responded that he is NOT a troll, therefore it IS healthy discussion, because he's NOT trolling.


Get it now? Maybetrydroppingthe pre-conceived notions about me being a troll too, and listen to what I'm actually saying.

Click to expand...

Circular reasoning such as this normally leads to incorrect conclusions.

imported post

wrightme wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

You then went on to say that it's not healthy discussion because it's "feeding a troll's desires," to which I responded that he is NOT a troll, therefore it IS healthy discussion, because he's NOT trolling.


Get it now? Maybetrydroppingthe pre-conceived notions about me being a troll too, and listen to what I'm actually saying.

Click to expand...

Circular reasoning such as this normally leads to incorrect conclusions.

Click to expand...

Pure stupidity. He's not a troll, therefore the premise is flawed. Everything concluded based on the fact that he's a troll is therefore wrong. You're a @#$%ing idiot.

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

You then went on to say that it's not healthy discussion because it's "feeding a troll's desires," to which I responded that he is NOT a troll, therefore it IS healthy discussion, because he's NOT trolling.


Get it now? Maybetrydroppingthe pre-conceived notions about me being a troll too, and listen to what I'm actually saying.

Click to expand...

Circular reasoning such as this normally leads to incorrect conclusions.

Click to expand...

Pure stupidity. He's not a troll, therefore the premise is flawed. Everything concluded based on the fact that he's a troll is therefore wrong. You're a @#$%ing idiot.

Click to expand...

Once again, insult instead of adult.

A person can be a "troll" in the strict sense of the definition on forums, and do nothing except that.
A person can be a regular poster, AND also produce "troll threads."

Stating a person isn't a troll does not automatically make all their theads "non-trolls."

And to think that I responded without a single instance of name-calling or insult. You might wish to step up and attempt it more often.

imported post

wrightme wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

You then went on to say that it's not healthy discussion because it's "feeding a troll's desires," to which I responded that he is NOT a troll, therefore it IS healthy discussion, because he's NOT trolling.


Get it now? Maybetrydroppingthe pre-conceived notions about me being a troll too, and listen to what I'm actually saying.

Click to expand...

Circular reasoning such as this normally leads to incorrect conclusions.

Click to expand...

Pure stupidity. He's not a troll, therefore the premise is flawed. Everything concluded based on the fact that he's a troll is therefore wrong. You're a @#$%ing idiot.

Click to expand...

Once again, insult instead of adult.

A person can be a "troll" in the strict sense of the definition on forums, and do nothing except that.
A person can be a regular poster, AND also produce "troll threads."

Stating a person isn't a troll does not automatically make all their theads "non-trolls."

And to think that I responded without a single instance of name-calling or insult. You might wish to step up and attempt it more often.

Click to expand...

More ASSumptions. Where's Hank's video? The statement of him not being a "troll" means BOTH, he's not a troll and these are not trolling threads. You try sooooooo hard, but you fail sooooo much. I'm beginning to think you have a mental condition that prevents you from making valid connections, conclusions, and understanding implications.

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

You then went on to say that it's not healthy discussion because it's "feeding a troll's desires," to which I responded that he is NOT a troll, therefore it IS healthy discussion, because he's NOT trolling.


Get it now? Maybetrydroppingthe pre-conceived notions about me being a troll too, and listen to what I'm actually saying.

Click to expand...

Circular reasoning such as this normally leads to incorrect conclusions.

Click to expand...

Pure stupidity. He's not a troll, therefore the premise is flawed. Everything concluded based on the fact that he's a troll is therefore wrong. You're a @#$%ing idiot.

Click to expand...

Once again, insult instead of adult.

A person can be a "troll" in the strict sense of the definition on forums, and do nothing except that.
A person can be a regular poster, AND also produce "troll threads."

Stating a person isn't a troll does not automatically make all their theads "non-trolls."

And to think that I responded without a single instance of name-calling or insult. You might wish to step up and attempt it more often.

Click to expand...

More ASSumptions. Where's Hank's video? The statement of him not being a "troll" means BOTH, he's not a troll and these are not trolling threads. You try sooooooo hard, but you fail sooooo much. I'm beginning to think you have a mental condition that prevents you from making valid connections, conclusions, and understanding implications.

Click to expand...

Once again, you simply are insulting as opposed to communicating. If you do not accept my reasoning, this does not make my reasoning flawed. You seem to deny my response simply because it does not match your chosen reality.

imported post

wrightme wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

You then went on to say that it's not healthy discussion because it's "feeding a troll's desires," to which I responded that he is NOT a troll, therefore it IS healthy discussion, because he's NOT trolling.


Get it now? Maybetrydroppingthe pre-conceived notions about me being a troll too, and listen to what I'm actually saying.

Click to expand...

Circular reasoning such as this normally leads to incorrect conclusions.

Click to expand...

Pure stupidity. He's not a troll, therefore the premise is flawed. Everything concluded based on the fact that he's a troll is therefore wrong. You're a @#$%ing idiot.

Click to expand...

Once again, insult instead of adult.

A person can be a "troll" in the strict sense of the definition on forums, and do nothing except that.
A person can be a regular poster, AND also produce "troll threads."

Stating a person isn't a troll does not automatically make all their theads "non-trolls."

And to think that I responded without a single instance of name-calling or insult. You might wish to step up and attempt it more often.

Click to expand...

More ASSumptions. Where's Hank's video? The statement of him not being a "troll" means BOTH, he's not a troll and these are not trolling threads. You try sooooooo hard, but you fail sooooo much. I'm beginning to think you have a mental condition that prevents you from making valid connections, conclusions, and understanding implications.

Click to expand...

Once again, you simply are insulting as opposed to communicating. If you do not accept my reasoning, this does not make my reasoning flawed. You seem to deny my response simply because it does not match your chosen reality.

Click to expand...

You can't win. You can try, try very hard like you always do, but you can't win.

You don't happen to have Aspergers, do you?

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

You then went on to say that it's not healthy discussion because it's "feeding a troll's desires," to which I responded that he is NOT a troll, therefore it IS healthy discussion, because he's NOT trolling.


Get it now? Maybetrydroppingthe pre-conceived notions about me being a troll too, and listen to what I'm actually saying.

Click to expand...

Circular reasoning such as this normally leads to incorrect conclusions.

Click to expand...

Pure stupidity. He's not a troll, therefore the premise is flawed. Everything concluded based on the fact that he's a troll is therefore wrong. You're a @#$%ing idiot.

Click to expand...

Once again, insult instead of adult.

A person can be a "troll" in the strict sense of the definition on forums, and do nothing except that.
A person can be a regular poster, AND also produce "troll threads."

Stating a person isn't a troll does not automatically make all their theads "non-trolls."

And to think that I responded without a single instance of name-calling or insult. You might wish to step up and attempt it more often.

Click to expand...

More ASSumptions. Where's Hank's video? The statement of him not being a "troll" means BOTH, he's not a troll and these are not trolling threads. You try sooooooo hard, but you fail sooooo much. I'm beginning to think you have a mental condition that prevents you from making valid connections, conclusions, and understanding implications.

Click to expand...

Once again, you simply are insulting as opposed to communicating. If you do not accept my reasoning, this does not make my reasoning flawed. You seem to deny my response simply because it does not match your chosen reality.

Click to expand...

You can't win. You can try, try very hard like you always do, but you can't win.

You don't happen to have Aspergers, do you?

Click to expand...

Nope. Far from it. Once again, you go to "insult," instead of to intelligent communication.

If you do not accept my reasoning, this does not make my reasoning flawed.

If someone is an LE, and they perpetrate a criminal act, are you going to deny that they are a criminal? That is the "logic" you are trying to use in this case.

You stated "he is NOT a troll, therefore it IS healthy discussion." This is the same as "he is NOT a criminal (because he is LE), therefore it IS a legal (and not criminal) act."

You are attempting circular reasoning.

imported post

To get away from the current argument lets look ata line in Hanks post

How in the heck does an 11-year-old have unrestricted acccess to a shotgun???

Click to expand...

When a childcan betrusted, and he/she has earned that trust, has been taught firearm safety and respects the tool he has been provided. I do not see a problem with someone under10,12, or 16 yrs of age having access toa firearm.

It is a parents duty to know their offspring well enough and make a decision if they have a high enough level of intelligence andwould beresponsible enough to bein posession offirearms.

I started shooting a pellet gun pre-kindergarten, I was so deadly accurate with that gun my father wanted to further my skills, he got me into a .22LR springfield and hoped to get me in a few competitions as i grew older! I had access to any number of rifles and shotguns prior to me being 10 yrs old. I chose to respect them and not use them in any illegal manner, all is still well and good. (and I still have that springfied 85-C bolt action rifle nearly 40 yrs later, and It is as accurate as ever.)

Their is no proof that the kid even shot the dads GF, "the gun smells like it has been shot" I must ask when the last time this police officers nose was last calibrated to determine that, and If I may see the paperwork from the lab confirming the calibration.

imported post

wrightme wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

You then went on to say that it's not healthy discussion because it's "feeding a troll's desires," to which I responded that he is NOT a troll, therefore it IS healthy discussion, because he's NOT trolling.


Get it now? Maybetrydroppingthe pre-conceived notions about me being a troll too, and listen to what I'm actually saying.

Click to expand...

Circular reasoning such as this normally leads to incorrect conclusions.

Click to expand...

Pure stupidity. He's not a troll, therefore the premise is flawed. Everything concluded based on the fact that he's a troll is therefore wrong. You're a @#$%ing idiot.

Click to expand...

Once again, insult instead of adult.

A person can be a "troll" in the strict sense of the definition on forums, and do nothing except that.
A person can be a regular poster, AND also produce "troll threads."

Stating a person isn't a troll does not automatically make all their theads "non-trolls."

And to think that I responded without a single instance of name-calling or insult. You might wish to step up and attempt it more often.

Click to expand...

More ASSumptions. Where's Hank's video? The statement of him not being a "troll" means BOTH, he's not a troll and these are not trolling threads. You try sooooooo hard, but you fail sooooo much. I'm beginning to think you have a mental condition that prevents you from making valid connections, conclusions, and understanding implications.

Click to expand...

Once again, you simply are insulting as opposed to communicating. If you do not accept my reasoning, this does not make my reasoning flawed. You seem to deny my response simply because it does not match your chosen reality.

Click to expand...

You can't win. You can try, try very hard like you always do, but you can't win.

You don't happen to have Aspergers, do you?

Click to expand...

Nope. Far from it. Once again, you go to "insult," instead of to intelligent communication.

If you do not accept my reasoning, this does not make my reasoning flawed.

If someone is an LE, and they perpetrate a criminal act, are you going to deny that they are a criminal? That is the "logic" you are trying to use in this case.

You stated "he is NOT a troll, therefore it IS healthy discussion." This is the same as "he is NOT a criminal (because he is LE), therefore it IS a legal (and not criminal) act."

You are attempting circular reasoning.

Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHA EPIC FAIL.

Although individuals with Asperger syndrome acquire language skills without significant general delay and their speech typically lacks significant abnormalities, language acquisition and use is often atypical.[8][/suP] Abnormalities include verbosity, abrupt transitions, literal interpretations and miscomprehension of nuance,

Click to expand...

Children with AS may have an unusually sophisticated vocabulary at a young age and have been colloquially called "little professors", but have difficulty understanding figurative language and tend to use language literally.[1][/suP] Children with AS appear to have particular weaknesses in areas of nonliteral language that include humor, irony, and teasing.

Click to expand...

I've never E-diagnosed someones problem before, but maybe you should hit up the local psychiatrist.

imported post

Nutczak wrote:

To get away from the current argument lets look ata line in Hanks post

How in the heck does an 11-year-old have unrestricted acccess to a shotgun???

Click to expand...

When a childcan betrusted, and he/she has earned that trust, has been taught firearm safety and respects the tool he has been provided. I do not see a problem with someone under10,12, or 16 yrs of age having access toa firearm.

It is a parents duty to know their offspring well enough and make a decision if they have a high enough level of intelligence andwould beresponsible enough to bein posession offirearms.

Click to expand...

That's pure idiocy. Someone at the age of 10, 11, or 12 years old doesn't have a developed enough brain to even truly understand the scope and consequences of their actions.

imported post

RTKBA legally does not extend to anyone under the age of majority.Permissive use of firearms under adult supervision is generally recognized. 'GIVING' an 11 year old minor childa shotgun and unsupervised/unrestricted ammo access is gross parental negligence. (I don't care what YOU did back when...)

If the little bugger offed this woman and unborn childin cold blood than he should pay the penalty for a murder 1 double homicide. I don't care how old he is. His father should be culpable for criminal negligence and reckless endangermentat least.

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

Nope. Far from it. Once again, you go to "insult," instead of to intelligent communication.

If you do not accept my reasoning, this does not make my reasoning flawed.

If someone is an LE, and they perpetrate a criminal act, are you going to deny that they are a criminal? That is the "logic" you are trying to use in this case.

You stated "he is NOT a troll, therefore it IS healthy discussion." This is the same as "he is NOT a criminal (because he is LE), therefore it IS a legal (and not criminal) act."

You are attempting circular reasoning.

Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHA EPIC FAIL.

Although individuals with Asperger syndrome acquire language skills without significant general delay and their speech typically lacks significant abnormalities, language acquisition and use is often atypical.[8][/suP] Abnormalities include verbosity, abrupt transitions, literal interpretations and miscomprehension of nuance,

Click to expand...

Children with AS may have an unusually sophisticated vocabulary at a young age and have been colloquially called "little professors", but have difficulty understanding figurative language and tend to use language literally.[1][/suP] Children with AS appear to have particular weaknesses in areas of nonliteral language that include humor, irony, and teasing.

Click to expand...

I've never E-diagnosed someones problem before, but maybe you should hit up the local psychiatrist.

Click to expand...

I don't see any reason you should expect to be able to now. :quirky

I can curse with the best, speak slang, andbe a smart-ass, but I also understand that communication styles are a great part of the perception others gain. In your case, I could simply resort to insult as you do. I choose to not do so. I do not desire for others to view me like they view you.

Diagnosis such as you attempt is "epic fail" to use your own term. :quirky

I have no "difficulty understanding figurative language." I choose to respond as I do. I have no desire to stoop to your level in this insult-fest which you seem to like.

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

More ASSumptions. Where's Hank's video? The statement of him not being a "troll" means BOTH, he's not a troll and these are not trolling threads. You try sooooooo hard, but you fail sooooo much. I'm beginning to think you have a mental condition that prevents you from making valid connections, conclusions, and understanding implications.

Click to expand...

So, you cannot see the nuance? Sounds like you have AS.

As mentioned, unless you areexperiencingliteral interpretations and miscomprehension of nuance, you should easily be able to understand that anyone can act as they choose, no matter which label you apply. Also, so far, you only have your declaration that 'he is not a troll." Your declaration does not automatically make it so.

A) AWD says HankT is not a Troll

B) AWD thus assumes that HankT is incapable of creating a "troll thread."

Looks like you are stuck in a "literal interpretation land." :quirky

Now, with all of that, I was still capable of responding without resorting to childish name-calling or insult. You should try it sometime.

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Nutczak wrote:

To get away from the current argument lets look ata line in Hanks post

How in the heck does an 11-year-old have unrestricted acccess to a shotgun???

Click to expand...

When a childcan betrusted, and he/she has earned that trust, has been taught firearm safety and respects the tool he has been provided. I do not see a problem with someone under10,12, or 16 yrs of age having access toa firearm.

It is a parents duty to know their offspring well enough and make a decision if they have a high enough level of intelligence andwould beresponsible enough to bein posession offirearms.

Click to expand...

That's pure idiocy. Someone at the age of 10, 11, or 12 years old doesn't have a developed enough brain to even truly understand the scope and consequences of their actions.

Click to expand...

Nor do many that are over the age of being considered an adult. Nowhere did Istate that every child be given a firearm with full access to it with excelent results.

imported post

Nutczak wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Nutczak wrote:

To get away from the current argument lets look ata line in Hanks post

How in the heck does an 11-year-old have unrestricted acccess to a shotgun???

Click to expand...

When a childcan betrusted, and he/she has earned that trust, has been taught firearm safety and respects the tool he has been provided. I do not see a problem with someone under10,12, or 16 yrs of age having access toa firearm.

It is a parents duty to know their offspring well enough and make a decision if they have a high enough level of intelligence andwould beresponsible enough to bein posession offirearms.

Click to expand...

That's pure idiocy. Someone at the age of 10, 11, or 12 years old doesn't have a developed enough brain to even truly understand the scope and consequences of their actions.

Click to expand...

Nor do many that are over the age of being considered an adult. Nowhere did Istate that every child be given a firearm with full access to it with excelent results.

Click to expand...

Nowhere did I provide forany childto be allowed a gun, your subjective views of maturity be damned.

imported post

wrightme wrote:

I choose to respond as I do. I have no desire to stoop to your level in this insult-fest which you seem to like.

Click to expand...

So you choose tomake yourself look like anidiot that can't understand (grossly obvious) implication? I almost feel bad for you now.

Individuals with Aspergers Syndrome often have great difficulty with metaphors and with information that is implied but not stated directly.

Click to expand...

Individuals with AS often exhibit communication difficulties in the areas of pragmatics, which includes difficulty with requesting; criticizing; asking; discussing opinions; speculating; negotiating; understanding others; and expressing complex thoughts, feelings, and emotions.

Click to expand...

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

I choose to respond as I do. I have no desire to stoop to your level in this insult-fest which you seem to like.

Click to expand...

So you choose tomake yourself look like anidiot that can't understand (grossly obvious) implication? I almost feel bad for you now.

Individuals with Aspergers Syndrome often have great difficulty with metaphors and with information that is implied but not stated directly.

Click to expand...

Individuals with AS often exhibit communication difficulties in the areas of pragmatics, which includes difficulty with requesting; criticizing; asking; discussing opinions; speculating; negotiating; understanding others; and expressing complex thoughts, feelings, and emotions.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Do you believe that a web forum transmits "information that is implied but not stated directly" without flaw?

The written word is a mode of communication that does not lend itself well to nuance. Hence the reason for the "smilies."

I am fine with the items listed in your post. I do not have some difficulty with understanding such items. I DO have difficulty understanding why you continue to insult and engage in childish name-calling. Do you act like that in public, or only from behind the security of your keyboard? :?


I do believe that when others label HankT as a troll, they may be overstating it a bit. But, judging by definitions, you sure do fit that moniker...

Being a prick on the internet because you can. Typically unleashing one or more cynical or sarcastic remarks on an innocent by-stander, because it's the internet and, hey, you can.

Click to expand...

"http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling