Here's another GLARING example...the DC Sniper attacks (beltway sniper). Dismantle that one, genius.
According to your 'guidelines', they are both spree AND serial killers. Again, confirming I am right. They killed several people in one day, and also carried out the killings over a 3 week period. Malvo and in some instances Muhammed also killed a few other people up to about a month BEFORE the beltway attacks started.
There's so many more examples, but just admit, you're wrong.
They are serial killers. Due to the time span lol. Like i said it can be worked out if you know what you're talking about.
You are also forgetting that even if there is an example of someone who crosses the lines of definition it doesn't make the whole term pointless as it's useful to label the hundreds more who DO fit the serial killer term. The term exists for a reason you tard, what are you going to do, throw it out because a few don't fit.
The question is simple; are there more who do fit the term, or more who don't. And because WAY more do, the term is has a valid use. Thats why it's used lol.
You said I couldn't name anyone, not one single one, who crosses lines, and YES I can, and did, and I have several more.
You're the one who posted all the timelines (3 days, one month, bullshit) and guidelines that you so believed in, and I proved you wrong. That's the whole point of what I'm saying anyway, they made too many guidelines and assumptions in the beginning when this was a 'new' term and a newer concentration of study (not a new thing of course, just a newer study)...just like they've been doing since the 70's with this serial killer crap, you just did right now with all the backpedaling and foot-in-mouth syndrome. This is exactly why 'spree killer' is useless and has been proven so, yet you still fail to see that. It just got proved to you.
This argument is about the validity of the term, not who is or isn't a serial killer.
You can't throw a term out just because a SMALL number don't fit, thats retarded as the HUGE number left would be unclassified, do you realise this simple fact is what proves your whole point wrong?
SEE THERE ^^^^^^ THAT, READ THAT INSTEAD OF RANTING ON.
I have repeated it three times over, it's not that hard to grasp if you read it and think instead of going on about a whole lot of different but equally irrelevant things. Either understand or don't, like the others said you're a retard.
1) I never said to throw out the term and NOT replace it with more appropriate terms (where did I say that??)
2) The argument is based on pointing out all of the wrongly/poorly classified, exceptions and cross-overs, so YES, it IS about who is and isn't a 'serial killer'. That's precisely what it's about!! How do you think they figured out 'spree killer' was a useless term? They found it to be impractical and undefined THROUGH USING IT AND FINDING IT DIDN'T WORK OUT. Oh, wait, even though I proved that to you, you still didn't concede I was right. Hello, I'm right, it's been showed to you.
You're calling ME a retard when you're the one who got proven wrong, posted a bunch or erroneous information and can't address any points. Hmm, good job.
Yes, you're a retard as your argument is retarded. It's a broad term so it doesn't need changing, otherwise you'll just end up with heaps of different terms making it more complex for the FBI than their jobs already are, while producing the same results. The point being that changing the terms won't DO ANYTHING, it won't catch them any faster mr retard. Don't cry to me, i'm not the only one here to point out your retardedness.
I did address your points as there aren't any because you seem to think that the WAY someone is killed is how they term a "serial killer", it isn't. I'm not wrong, and niether is the REST OF THE WORLD that disagrees with you.
So you're saying only the body count makes a serial killer, and method has nothing to do with it?
OK, well yeah, so make people stop trying to define serial killers. We have nothing in common, and if you're going to try to make it a psychological phenomenon then stop trying to lump us all together then because it's insulting. Don't put ME in with some douche who just got 'stuck' with the name because he didn't have enough time to finish his project.
Is it normal I think we need to throw out the term 'Serial Killer'?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Here's another GLARING example...the DC Sniper attacks (beltway sniper). Dismantle that one, genius.
According to your 'guidelines', they are both spree AND serial killers. Again, confirming I am right. They killed several people in one day, and also carried out the killings over a 3 week period. Malvo and in some instances Muhammed also killed a few other people up to about a month BEFORE the beltway attacks started.
There's so many more examples, but just admit, you're wrong.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
They are serial killers. Due to the time span lol. Like i said it can be worked out if you know what you're talking about.
You are also forgetting that even if there is an example of someone who crosses the lines of definition it doesn't make the whole term pointless as it's useful to label the hundreds more who DO fit the serial killer term. The term exists for a reason you tard, what are you going to do, throw it out because a few don't fit.
The question is simple; are there more who do fit the term, or more who don't. And because WAY more do, the term is has a valid use. Thats why it's used lol.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
And once again, you weasel out of it.
According to YOU they're also spree killers.
You said I couldn't name anyone, not one single one, who crosses lines, and YES I can, and did, and I have several more.
You're the one who posted all the timelines (3 days, one month, bullshit) and guidelines that you so believed in, and I proved you wrong. That's the whole point of what I'm saying anyway, they made too many guidelines and assumptions in the beginning when this was a 'new' term and a newer concentration of study (not a new thing of course, just a newer study)...just like they've been doing since the 70's with this serial killer crap, you just did right now with all the backpedaling and foot-in-mouth syndrome. This is exactly why 'spree killer' is useless and has been proven so, yet you still fail to see that. It just got proved to you.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
This argument is about the validity of the term, not who is or isn't a serial killer.
You can't throw a term out just because a SMALL number don't fit, thats retarded as the HUGE number left would be unclassified, do you realise this simple fact is what proves your whole point wrong?
SEE THERE ^^^^^^ THAT, READ THAT INSTEAD OF RANTING ON.
I have repeated it three times over, it's not that hard to grasp if you read it and think instead of going on about a whole lot of different but equally irrelevant things. Either understand or don't, like the others said you're a retard.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
1) I never said to throw out the term and NOT replace it with more appropriate terms (where did I say that??)
2) The argument is based on pointing out all of the wrongly/poorly classified, exceptions and cross-overs, so YES, it IS about who is and isn't a 'serial killer'. That's precisely what it's about!! How do you think they figured out 'spree killer' was a useless term? They found it to be impractical and undefined THROUGH USING IT AND FINDING IT DIDN'T WORK OUT. Oh, wait, even though I proved that to you, you still didn't concede I was right. Hello, I'm right, it's been showed to you.
You're calling ME a retard when you're the one who got proven wrong, posted a bunch or erroneous information and can't address any points. Hmm, good job.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yes, you're a retard as your argument is retarded. It's a broad term so it doesn't need changing, otherwise you'll just end up with heaps of different terms making it more complex for the FBI than their jobs already are, while producing the same results. The point being that changing the terms won't DO ANYTHING, it won't catch them any faster mr retard. Don't cry to me, i'm not the only one here to point out your retardedness.
I did address your points as there aren't any because you seem to think that the WAY someone is killed is how they term a "serial killer", it isn't. I'm not wrong, and niether is the REST OF THE WORLD that disagrees with you.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
So you're saying only the body count makes a serial killer, and method has nothing to do with it?
OK, well yeah, so make people stop trying to define serial killers. We have nothing in common, and if you're going to try to make it a psychological phenomenon then stop trying to lump us all together then because it's insulting. Don't put ME in with some douche who just got 'stuck' with the name because he didn't have enough time to finish his project.