Nick wrote:
Why is Taylor Kingston apparently misrepresenting
what I have described of my friend's response as my
own independent view?

Nick, it's still going right over your head.

My friend informed me that, as far as he knew,
*there was no 'plight of London'* (his emphasis) to speak of.
He felt that much of the news coverage was overblown.
My friend mentioned that his neighbours and he were
'laughing' (his term) at the bombers' incompetence.
His neighbours and he were not obsessing about the
supposed 'plight of London' (to quote Taylor Kingston).
He seemed irritated that Taylor Kingston had used
that expression and attributed it to ignorance.

Would Taylor Kingston, who was not there, like to
tell my friend that he did not observe what he did?

My friend went on to say that the deaths were statistically
minor in a city of London's great size. He added that he
still felt safer from violent death in London than he would
have felt in some cities in the United States.

Taylor Kingston has snipped what I wrote earlier:

Nick, for someone who complains repeatedly that his "context has been
snipped," you are really botching up the context of my "plight of
London" remark. For a man who often denigrates the erudition of others,
and boasts of his own intellectual attainments, you show an embarassing
lack of comprehension. You are also making a mountain of a molehill,
and looking quite silly in the process.
Now, using Google, go back to my 10 July 2005 post. Read it again
(and again and again if necessary) until you understand it. It would
help greatly if you also read the preceding posts, so that you
understand the surrounding context and exactly what my post replied to.
Because you seem to be having such a hard time with it, I will give you
a few helpful clues and hints to aid your understanding:

1. The post was directed at Goran Tomic and Sam Sloan.
2. Whenever he has no arguments to support his loony positions (which
is quite often), Goran Tomic is fond of exclaiming "This is chess
newsgroup! Return on chess topics!"
3. The post actually has nothing to do with London, bombing, plights,
etc.
4. Contrary to the interpretation you have so far given it, the post
is not to be taken in a literal sense. Think of such adjectives as
sardonic, sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek. Think of such nouns as put-on,
lampoon, skewer.

See if you can figure it out now. And remember, this counts toward
your final grade.

"My friend recognised that Taylor Kingston may have
been attempting to offer his sympathy,

I have no sympathy for Goran Tomic or Sam Sloan.