• okamiueru@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    intially replied to made it clear that the death of the gunman happened after the gunman was

    Oh? WokerOne made that clear? Incorrect. So… Kinda invalidates your rude remark… And is the basis for my argument. Hence the repetition. Nor did the parent comment make that clear either. Certainly suggests it might be the case. But, when sommone follows that up with its own premise and context, and you ignore it, is on you. The usefulness of a conversation after that point is also lost. But again, that’s on you.

    • StorminNorman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The article says “after the shooting” the gunman was killed.

      Pretty fucking clear to me. Note it doesn’t say “during” or any of its synonyms.

      • okamiueru@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes… Meh. This is boring. You don’t really understand what it is you failed to understand. But that’s alright.

        • StorminNorman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You don’t understand basic English comprehension.

          Let’s break down your initial comment.

          But if he was shooting pub goers

          He wasn’t so the rest of your comment is irrelevant. He had shot pub goers, but he wasn’t when he was killed. He had been subdued. Don’t need to break down the rest cos it’s as useful as you are in general to society, not very.