Natural History Museum crash: Car hits people in London

A car mounted the pavement outside THE BRITISH MUSEUM   in LONDON,     AT2.20 THIS AFTERNOON,   MANY INJURED.  a MAN arrested,    Police holding him down on pavement.

Thought I'd add the link for you

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4958398/Car-mounts-pavement-outside-Natural-History-Museum.html

More Muslim terror

smelly-bandit wrote:More Muslim terror

Link providing evidence, or simply conjecture and a wish that it is so from the forum racist Nazi.

It was a London cabbie in a black cab.

http://dailym.ai/2g0kKK5

Just on TV, ANTI-TERRORIST POLICE CALLED IN !

Just so posters know ,i'm only posting what's said on TV.

The likihood is that it IS terrorist related. Usual modus operandi.
I am wary because of the type of vehicle used. Black london cab.
Unlike Stench, I dont  jump to conclusions based on racist profiling.

Angry Andy wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:More Muslim terror

Link providing evidence, or simply conjecture and a wish that it is so from the forum racist Nazi.

It was a London cabbie in a black cab.

http://dailym.ai/2g0kKK5

It wasn't a black cab. It was a black Toyota Prius. Registered mini cab.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:
Link providing evidence, or simply conjecture and a wish that it is so from the forum racist Nazi.

It was a London cabbie in a black cab.

http://dailym.ai/2g0kKK5

It wasn't a black cab.  It was a black Toyota Prius.  Registered mini cab.

I was just going to post the same...there was no black cab in the videos apart from the ones passing the scene.

Read the Daily Mail link I supplied.
3rd paragragh.
A black Toyota Prius - a registered London minicab.

Is there a part of that you haven't understood?

Angry Andy wrote:Read the Daily Mail link I supplied.
3rd paragragh.
A black Toyota Prius - a registered  London minicab.

Is there a part of that you haven't  understood?

London cabbies are usually drivers of London Black Taxis, that's why there was a misunderstanding.

Three minutes ago:

A major police investigation is underway and several people have been injured after a car reportedly mounted the pavement outside London’s Natural History Museum.

The Metropolitan Police said in a statement: “It is believed that a number of pedestrians have been injured.

“Officers are on scene, and the London Ambulance Service have been called. A man has been detained at the scene. Enquiries to establish the circumstances and motive are underway.”

The Met said it was called to Exhibition Road at 2.21pm. The force originally said the man had been formally arrested, but later revised its statement.

The Independent understands that at this stage, police are not treating the incident as terror-related.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/natural-history-museum-car-pavement-police-injuries-pedestrians-london-latest-live-a7988026.html

Angry Andy wrote:Read the Daily Mail link I supplied.
3rd paragragh.
A black Toyota Prius - a registered  London minicab.

Is there a part of that you haven't  understood?

A minicab isn't a black cab. A black cab is another name for a hackney cab....both in London and everywhere else in the UK.

It was taxi.
It was registered by TfL.
It was black.

Cab, minicab, taxi. Hackney carriage. Semantics.
It carries people around for a fare.

Angry Andy wrote:It was taxi.
It was registered by TfL.
It was black.

Cab, minicab, taxi. Hackney carriage. Semantics.
It carries people around for a fare.

True, but the confusion lay in you referring to the vehicle as a 'black cab'.... its a minicab which happens to be black.
Totally different.

Angry Andy wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:More Muslim terror

Link providing evidence, or simply conjecture and a wish that it is so from the forum racist Nazi.

It was a London cabbie in a black cab.

http://dailym.ai/2g0kKK5

Wait for it

Car which mounted pavement outside London museum sparking panic was road accident, say police

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/07/car-mounts-pavement-outside-london-museum-according-reports1/

Some accident huh?

Raggamuffin wrote:Some accident huh?

Not many involved in an accident end up restrained on the floor.

It's ridiculous that someone can have an accident in London which involves hitting so many people. Why don't they slow down and look where they're going?

Raggamuffin wrote:It's ridiculous that someone can have an accident in London which involves hitting so many people. Why don't they slow down and look where they're going?

A good point.

Raggamuffin wrote:Some accident huh?

Thankfully not as deadly as this accident

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/31/glasgow-bin-lorry-death-crash-driver-avoids-jail-for-new-incident

Seems it was an Uber driver who has had a brainstorm.

NOT terror related.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41538762

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html

The RW all fully endorse and support freelance Uber drivers, so a tiny, lickle bit of blame can be apportioned to the Government.
Moreover, it shoots Stench's claim to be another Islamist terrorist plot to bed.
Just another one of a catalogue of race hate  lies borne of the resident racist.
Will he redact his lie?

Doubt it.
He still believes it in his own demented and deranged mind.

smelly-bandit wrote:More Muslim terror

BIG FAT RACIST LIE from the forum NAZI.

Angry Andy wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:More Muslim terror

BIG FAT RACIST LIE from the forum NAZI.

Angry Andy wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:More Muslim terror

BIG FAT RACIST LIE from the forum NAZI.

Ooooh, Getting all shouty are we.

I refer YOU to the rules about posts/threads designed to get another member banned. And advise you that this applies whether that attempt is by means of group pressure on staff OR by attempting to provoke that other member into a bad response. I can see right through you.

Once again your show that you in particular (and you supporters) cannot function/debate without resorting to personal.insults etc when placed out of you precious "safe space"

I will NOT ALLOW you and your cohorts to create the same problems as you have, repeatedly, caused in the past. ON ALMOST EVERY occasion,it is your ilk that has been the ROOT of trouble with your childish name calling, downright lies and scabrous insinuations.
So far already you have wished smellys death by suicide and NOW you make an infantile attempt to provoke him,fortunately, whilst he "may"have the intellect of a gnat, that outranks yours by an order of magnitude.

IM NOT asking, I'm telling you IT STOPS NOW.

And just so you can be sure which hat I'm wearing

LordFoul ....MOD.

Lord Foul wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:

BIG FAT RACIST LIE from the forum NAZI.

Ooooh, Getting all shouty are we.

I refer YOU to the rules about posts/threads designed to get another member banned. And advise you that this applies whether that attempt is by means of group pressure on staff OR by attempting to provoke that other member into a bad response. I can see right through you.

Once again your show that you in particular (and you supporters) cannot function/debate without resorting to personal.insults etc when placed out of you precious "safe space"

I will NOT ALLOW you and your cohorts to create the same problems as you have, repeatedly, caused in the past. ON ALMOST EVERY occasion,it is your ilk that has been the ROOT of trouble with your childish name calling, downright lies and scabrous insinuations.
So far already you have wished smellys death by suicide and NOW you make an infantile attempt to provoke him,fortunately, whilst he "may"have the intellect of a gnat, that outranks yours by an order of magnitude.

IM NOT asking, I'm telling you IT STOPS NOW.

And just so you can be sure which hat I'm wearing

LordFoul ....MOD.

Since when is calling someone a nazi against the rules?

At no point did he call for smelly to be banned

Seriously, are you mods on a constant power trip?

What happened to free speech and expression?

Lets take this in context

Smelly did make a poor assumption, mainly as he is racist, he is not a Nazi, as he does not hate Jews.

He is a by-product of Apartheid, so why can not people call him out on in fact he was wrong in his poor prejudiced assumptions?

Maybe you should act like a reasonable MOD and not jump in trying to showing off your cock. As we all know Andy's is bigger.

For fuck sake, get off his back, he did no wrong

I have been called ten times worse and daily and have never seen you jump in once when I have been called many things.

Didge wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:

BIG FAT RACIST LIE from the forum NAZI.

Ooooh, Getting all shouty are we.

I refer YOU to the rules about posts/threads designed to get another member banned. And advise you that this applies whether that attempt is by means of group pressure on staff OR by attempting to provoke that other member into a bad response. I can see right through you.

Once again your show that you in particular (and you supporters) cannot function/debate without resorting to personal.insults etc when placed out of you precious "safe space"

I will NOT ALLOW you and your cohorts to create the same problems as you have, repeatedly, caused in the past. ON ALMOST EVERY occasion,it is your ilk that has been the ROOT of trouble with your childish name calling, downright lies and scabrous insinuations.
So far already you have wished smellys death by suicide and NOW you make an infantile attempt to provoke him,fortunately, whilst he "may"have the intellect of a gnat, that outranks yours by an order of magnitude.

IM NOT asking, I'm telling you IT STOPS NOW.

And just so you can be sure which hat I'm wearing

LordFoul ....MOD.

Since when is calling someone a nazi against the rules?

At no point did he call for smelly to be banned

Seriously, are you mods on a constant power trip?

What happened to free speech and expression?

Lets take this in context

Smelly did make a poor assumption, mainly as he is racist, he is not a Nazi, as he does not hate Jews.

He is a by-product of Apartheid, so why can not people call him out on in fact he was wrong in his poor prejudiced assumptions?

Maybe you should act like a reasonable MOD and not jump in trying to showing off your cock. As we all know Andy's is bigger.

For fuck sake, get off his back, he did no wrong

I have been called ten times worse and daily and have never seen you jump in once when I have been called many things.

Who the fuck asked you for your input?
GO BACK AND READ WHAT I SAID....I did NOT say he had called for smelly to be banned.

I know only too well what his "game" is.

NOT that the matter is up for debate.

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:


Since when is calling someone a nazi against the rules?

At no point did he call for smelly to be banned

Seriously, are you mods on a constant power trip?

What happened to free speech and expression?

Lets take this in context

Smelly did make a poor assumption, mainly as he is racist, he is not a Nazi, as he does not hate Jews.

He is a by-product of Apartheid, so why can not people call him out on in fact he was wrong in his poor prejudiced assumptions?

Maybe you should act like a reasonable MOD and not jump in trying to showing off your cock. As we all know Andy's is bigger.

For fuck sake, get off his back, he did no wrong

I have been called ten times worse and daily and have never seen you jump in once when I have been called many things.

Who the fuck asked you for your input?
GO BACK AND READ WHAT I SAID....I did NOT say he had called for smelly to be banned.

I know only too well what his "game" is.

NOT that the matter is up for debate.

So I am not allowed an input? I would call you a Nazi on that, but no doubt that would get me banned

Hence the idocy of such a rule that questions views by Mods

That is Totalitarianism

So now you claim to be a mind reader and can interpret words to deduce what someone really means?

Is it possible you are mistaken in you presumption here?

How would your claim stand up in a court of law?

[quote="Didge"]

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:


Since when is calling someone a nazi against the rules?

At no point did he call for smelly to be banned

Seriously, are you mods on a constant power trip?

What happened to free speech and expression?

Lets take this in context

Smelly did make a poor assumption, mainly as he is racist, he is not a Nazi, as he does not hate Jews.

He is a by-product of Apartheid, so why can not people call him out on in fact he was wrong in his poor prejudiced assumptions?

Maybe you should act like a reasonable MOD and not jump in trying to showing off your cock. As we all know Andy's is bigger.

For fuck sake, get off his back, he did no wrong

I have been called ten times worse and daily and have never seen you jump in once when I have been called many things.

Who the fuck asked you for your input?
GO BACK AND READ WHAT I SAID....I did NOT say he had called for smelly to be banned.

I know only too well what his "game" is.

NOT that the matter is up for debate.

So I am not allowed an input? I would call you a Nazi on that, but no doubt that would get me banned


only if I was in a foul mood .......and if I were you I'd ask Stalin about that

Hence the idocy of such a rule that questions views by Mods

The sheep do not question the decisions of the shepherds


That is Totalitarianism


And?

So now you claim to be a mind reader and can interpret words to deduce what someone really means?

No, but I know his modus operandi

Is it possible you are mistaken in you presumption here?


Somehow I doubt it, Just like I can read you like a book I can read him also

How would your claim stand up in a court of law?00]It doesnt have to. Besides it would be a civil action in which the burden of proof is simply "on the balance of probabilities
/quote]

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:

So I am not allowed an input? I would call you a Nazi on that, but no doubt that would get me banned


only if I was in a foul mood   .......and if I were you I'd ask Stalin about that

Hence the idocy of such a rule that questions views by Mods

The sheep do not question the decisions of the shepherds


That is Totalitarianism


And?

So now you claim to be a mind reader and can interpret words to deduce what someone really means?

No, but I know his modus operandi

Is it possible you are mistaken in you presumption here?


Somehow I doubt it, Just like I can read you like a book I can read him also

How would your claim stand up in a court of law?00]It doesnt have to. Besides it would be a civil action in which the burden of proof is simply "on the balance of probabilities
/quote]

1)So you admit your moderation is not based on reasons but emotions then?

2) So you class all posters beneath you then. Okay, thanks for the honesty

3) So based on a view of someone, you thus admit a bias. That you will then see and look at any post they make with a view they are looking to ban someone? I would really love for you to explain that horseshit. What I see is, as i say a view, because he has in the past looked to cause trouble to ban people, you have now placed a fixed view on him. That now any view, you now see as starting. As lets face it, he did no wrong here and you jumped in poorly. If he broke a rule fine, but it seems you have formed a poor bias against him.

4) You doubt it and offer no proof. 

5) Oh its has to, because dicks like me, will always take you to task, when you are out of line and here you are out of order.

He did no wrong and you know it. You poorly presummed here.

Didge wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:

So I am not allowed an input? I would call you a Nazi on that, but no doubt that would get me banned


only if I was in a foul mood   .......and if I were you I'd ask Stalin about that

Hence the idocy of such a rule that questions views by Mods

The sheep do not question the decisions of the shepherds


That is Totalitarianism


And?

So now you claim to be a mind reader and can interpret words to deduce what someone really means?

No, but I know his modus operandi

Is it possible you are mistaken in you presumption here?


Somehow I doubt it, Just like I can read you like a book I can read him also

How would your claim stand up in a court of law?00]It doesnt have to. Besides it would be a civil action in which the burden of proof is simply "on the balance of probabilities
/quote]

1)So you admit your moderation is not based on reasons but emotions then?

2) So you class all posters beneath you then. Okay, thanks for the honesty

3) So based on a view of someone, you thus admit a bias. That you will then see and look at any post they make with a view they are looking to ban someone? I would really love for you to explain that horseshit. What I see is, as i say a view, because he has in the past looked to cause trouble to ban people, you have now placed a fixed view on him. That now any view, you now see as starting. As lets face it, he did no wrong here and you jumped in poorly. If he broke a rule fine, but it seems you have formed a poor bias against him.

4) You doubt it and offer no proof. 

5) Oh its has to, because dicks like me, will always take you to task, when you are out of line and here you are out of order.

He did no wrong and you know it. You poorly presummed here.

Ohhh Soo serious......(thats a quote btw)

It would appear from your posts that you are all too ready to make "assumptions" as well.

At least you admit your failings.

Oh and whoever was it that told you that this was a democracy?

There are two ways to mod...reactively or proactively....I prefer to be Procative....and head off potential trouble BEFORE it blossoms.......and YOU aint helping.

Hell I dont even actually see why I'm talking to you.

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:


1)So you admit your moderation is not based on reasons but emotions then?

2) So you class all posters beneath you then. Okay, thanks for the honesty

3) So based on a view of someone, you thus admit a bias. That you will then see and look at any post they make with a view they are looking to ban someone? I would really love for you to explain that horseshit. What I see is, as i say a view, because he has in the past looked to cause trouble to ban people, you have now placed a fixed view on him. That now any view, you now see as starting. As lets face it, he did no wrong here and you jumped in poorly. If he broke a rule fine, but it seems you have formed a poor bias against him.

4) You doubt it and offer no proof. 

5) Oh its has to, because dicks like me, will always take you to task, when you are out of line and here you are out of order.

He did no wrong and you know it. You poorly presummed here.

Ohhh Soo serious......(thats a quote btw)

It would appear from your posts that you are all too ready to make "assumptions" as well.

At least you admit your failings.

Oh and whoever was it that told you that this was a democracy?

There are two ways to mod...reactively or proactively....I prefer to be Procative....and head off potential trouble BEFORE it blossoms.......and YOU aint helping.

Hell I dont even actually see why I'm talking to you.

1) How am I making assumptions based off your plain answers?

2) I have never had any problem admitting my faults

3) Well, if its not a democracy and it does not stand for free speech. How can you participate in something that goes against your principles?

4) So you have the potential to make mistakles and not see that you might actually do so. Which means you do not like yourself, admitting you could be wrong. I am always fair on such things and you know this so well and hence why in this instance, you are being poor

5) You are talking to me, because you know deep down, what I am saying has you question yourself. If I have done this, then I have done something right.

Didge wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:


1)So you admit your moderation is not based on reasons but emotions then?

2) So you class all posters beneath you then. Okay, thanks for the honesty

3) So based on a view of someone, you thus admit a bias. That you will then see and look at any post they make with a view they are looking to ban someone? I would really love for you to explain that horseshit. What I see is, as i say a view, because he has in the past looked to cause trouble to ban people, you have now placed a fixed view on him. That now any view, you now see as starting. As lets face it, he did no wrong here and you jumped in poorly. If he broke a rule fine, but it seems you have formed a poor bias against him.

4) You doubt it and offer no proof. 

5) Oh its has to, because dicks like me, will always take you to task, when you are out of line and here you are out of order.

He did no wrong and you know it. You poorly presummed here.

Ohhh Soo serious......(thats a quote btw)

It would appear from your posts that you are all too ready to make "assumptions" as well.

At least you admit your failings.

Oh and whoever was it that told you that this was a democracy?

There are two ways to mod...reactively or proactively....I prefer to be Procative....and head off potential trouble BEFORE it blossoms.......and YOU aint helping.

Hell I dont even actually see why I'm talking to you.

1) How am I making assumptions based off your plain answers?

2) I have never had any problem admitting my faults

3) Well, if its not a democracy and it does not stand for free speech. How can you participate in something that goes against your principles?

4) So you have the potential to make mistakles and not see that you might actually do so. Which means you do not like yourself, admitting you could be wrong. I am always fair on such things and you know this so well and hence why in this instance, you are being poor

5) You are talking to me, because you know deep down, what I am saying has you question yourself. If I have done this, then I have done something right.

5) You have far too high an opinion of yourself. I'M right your wrong..simples

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:


1) How am I making assumptions based off your plain answers?

2) I have never had any problem admitting my faults

3) Well, if its not a democracy and it does not stand for free speech. How can you participate in something that goes against your principles?

4) So you have the potential to make mistakles and not see that you might actually do so. Which means you do not like yourself, admitting you could be wrong. I am always fair on such things and you know this so well and hence why in this instance, you are being poor

5) You are talking to me, because you know deep down, what I am saying has you question yourself. If I have done this, then I have done something right.

5) You have far too high an opinion of yourself.  I'M right your wrong..simples

Maybe i have, but at least i can admit that I do.

Your failing is never listening to others, when they give you advice.

You just proved that

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Some accident huh?

Thankfully not as deadly as this accident

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/31/glasgow-bin-lorry-death-crash-driver-avoids-jail-for-new-incident

It is not a motor vehicle "accident" once people are injured or killed...

NOTE where police (and some news reports..) re-classify the situation as an "incident" once sombody is injured --  as seen in some of those links..

Pedantically yours...      

Angry Andy wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:
More Muslim terror

BIG FAT RACIST LIE from the forum NAZI.

Too true, that,  'Andy...

The only reason that SmellyBum' and a couple of his trolling Floptard cohorts seem to be on here is to spread their xenophobic, racist and diversionary slurs and rumours on every second post they make --  we see little else from them..

However, I would refer to them as extreme-right fascists and  sometimes "neo-nazi's"; rather than outright "Nazis".

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:
BIG FAT RACIST LIE from the forum NAZI.

Too true, that,  'Andy...

The only reason that SmellyBum' and a couple of his trolling Floptard cohorts seem to be on here is to spread their xenophobic, racist and diversionary slurs and rumours on every second post they make --  we see little else from them..

However, I would refer to them as extreme-right fascists and  sometimes "neo-nazi's"; rather than outright "Nazis".

Russo-bots.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:
BIG FAT RACIST LIE from the forum NAZI.

Too true, that,  'Andy...

The only reason that SmellyBum' and a couple of his trolling Floptard cohorts seem to be on here is to spread their xenophobic, racist and diversionary slurs and rumours on every second post they make --  we see little else from them..

However, I would refer to them as extreme-right fascists and  sometimes "neo-nazi's"; rather than outright "Nazis".

You guys really need to learn to relax.

You should take a page out the smelly-bandits book of tolerance

Angry Andy wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:More Muslim terror

BIG FAT RACIST LIE from the forum NAZI.

Oh dear, poor thing, and it seems others as well are a little miffed that they can't ply their hatred for the second time in a row. Their frustration is palpable.

Weird that Foul hasnt picked up on Stench's lie about the iincident being a Muslim terror attack.
But we all know the reason why.

Angry Andy wrote:Weird that Foul hasnt picked up on Stench's  lie about the iincident being a Muslim terror attack.
But we all know the reason why.

Probably for the same reason he didn't pick sassy up for her "white terrorism" comment on the Vegas shooting thread

smelly-bandit wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


Too true, that,  'Andy...

The only reason that SmellyBum' and a couple of his trolling Floptard cohorts seem to be on here is to spread their xenophobic, racist and diversionary slurs and rumours on every second post they make --  we see little else from them..

However, I would refer to them as extreme-right fascists and  sometimes "neo-nazi's"; rather than outright "Nazis".

You guys really need to learn to relax.

You should take a page out the smelly-bandits book of tolerance

So says the most intolerant little muppet to have infested NewsFix ever since the departure of the equally demented and unlamented faux_"Major" Stormee...

Fact is, Stench owns Foul. He owns the forum.
He posts racist and provocative remarks designed to get a reaction.
And when that reaction comes, he chortles.
He wiĺl continue in the same way Stormee did.
When he steps over the line, nothing from the mods, nil, nix.
When we react, Foul is over us like the plague.
LF said being a mod is a nervous job.
He certainly appears nervous that he might upset the forum troll.
Sadly the alt right are too dominant here nowadays.
Look at the great  posters who can no longer be bothered. Korben Dallas, Irn Bru. Joy Division, Scrat, Sassy rarely posts. Jules seldom.
Kinda tells its own story.

Lord Foul wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:

BIG FAT RACIST LIE from the forum NAZI.

Ooooh, Getting all shouty are we.

I refer YOU to the rules about posts/threads designed to get another member banned. And advise you that this applies whether that attempt is by means of group pressure on staff OR by attempting to provoke that other member into a bad response. I can see right through you.

Once again your show that you in particular (and you supporters) cannot function/debate without resorting to personal.insults etc when placed out of you precious "safe space"

I will NOT ALLOW you and your cohorts to create the same problems as you have, repeatedly, caused in the past. ON ALMOST EVERY occasion,it is your ilk that has been the ROOT of trouble with your childish name calling, downright lies and scabrous insinuations.
So far already you have wished smellys death by suicide and NOW you make an infantile attempt to provoke him,fortunately, whilst he "may"have the intellect of a gnat, that outranks yours by an order of magnitude.

IM NOT asking, I'm telling you IT STOPS NOW.

And just so you can be sure which hat I'm wearing

LordFoul ....MOD.

Good grief, takes a lot for me to agree with the dodgy one, but strikes me you are miffed as well. Andy is right, smelly is a nazi yob, defending him is immoral.

Forgot to add, many thanks, Didge, for your support. We will often disagree on msny topics, but like you, I am ready to thank where appropriate.

I thought it was a Muslim terrorist straightaway.
But I didn't say anything in case I was subsequently proven to be wrong.
Cos the quickest way to look foolish is to rush to conclusions.

Stupid man, why didn't he look where he was going?
He's not fit to be on the roads.
He was really roughed up and he bled profusely.
Plus his driving licence will be taken away.
I hope that teaches him a lesson.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

You guys really need to learn to relax.

You should take a page out the smelly-bandits book of tolerance

So says the most intolerant little muppet to have infested NewsFix ever since the departure of the equally demented and unlamented faux_"Major" Stormee...

I'm very tolerant wolfie, I'm more tolerant of you and your continual insults than you are of me.

Of the two of us, you show more bigotry and hatred than I do

sassy wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

Ooooh, Getting all shouty are we.

I refer YOU to the rules about posts/threads designed to get another member banned. And advise you that this applies whether that attempt is by means of group pressure on staff OR by attempting to provoke that other member into a bad response. I can see right through you.

Once again your show that you in particular (and you supporters) cannot function/debate without resorting to personal.insults etc when placed out of you precious "safe space"

I will NOT ALLOW you and your cohorts to create the same problems as you have, repeatedly, caused in the past. ON ALMOST EVERY occasion,it is your ilk that has been the ROOT of trouble with your childish name calling, downright lies and scabrous insinuations.
So far already you have wished smellys death by suicide and NOW you make an infantile attempt to provoke him,fortunately, whilst he "may"have the intellect of a gnat, that outranks yours by an order of magnitude.

IM NOT asking, I'm telling you IT STOPS NOW.

And just so you can be sure which hat I'm wearing

LordFoul ....MOD.

Good grief, takes a lot for me to agree with the dodgy one, but strikes me you are miffed as well.  Andy is right, smelly is a nazi yob, defending him is immoral.

Can't we all just let bygones be bygones and be friends like we were in the good old days??

Or is your heart so full of anger and hatred that you lack the emotional maturity for forgiveness??

Ive forgiven you sassy