Told Ya So... 1881

rpl

Uh...if everyone read it first-hand, who am I propogating it to? That's a pitiful little conspiracy theory you've got going there. Isn't it simpler to just accept my explanation that it's proof that there are, in fact, armed police roaming the streets of London?

You are? Maybe you can get a PR job for the Metropolitan Police.

No, twisting the truth is not my aim. And you still haven't provided evidence that I distorted anything for whatever reason.

Oh, is that what you're on about? The fact that I quoted the paper verbatim is some kind of sin? What was I supposed to do, divine the "real" truth by mental telepathy and then change the wording?

The parts I snipped were not relavent to the true reason I posted it: proof that London police are armed. And if I was trying to propogate unease and uncertainty, why would I have snipped all the stuff about the victim being innocent? And wouldn't I have left in the question of whether or not he understood English? Wouldn't that make him look even more innocent?

Let me give you a hint about building a crackpot conspiracy theory. The first rule is it must have internal consistency. Without consistency, the theory is wrong automatically. There is no need to prove it's wrong. All your little crackpot notions have to point in the same direction.

Oh, has the victim morphed back to life?

No?

So that fact remains true?

What about the guy who shot him? Is he still a policeman or has he morphed into something else?

Tell that to the guy on the subway. You don't suppose, by any chance, that the reason he thought he could get away was the "fact" that the UK police don't carry guns?

So maybe it's YOU who's furthering the aims of persons. persons want as many innocent victims as possible. You are trying to dupe the innoncent so they will get themselves end.