TexasCHLforum.com

jimlongley wrote:

wgoforth wrote:

jimlongley wrote:Talk about dishonesty. She said, and the original print article did too, that "we did other research and found that there are notable studies . . ."

But now, in the ultimate act of dishonesty, they have changed the print to state "A notable study . . ."

I still want to know what other "notable studies" (plural) they found, or was that a lie too?

'

She responded and said it was the Donohue study at http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewconten ... hn_donohue" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The part you are either not understanding or are ignoring is that she said "STUDIES", plural, as in more than one, many as opposed to one, not just one. And then they go and change the text from studies to: "Look, see, here's a study" as in one, and only one, not many. Besides the simple fact that the Donohue "study" is not really a study, but a different way of looking at the same number, cherry picking the stats that he wants to use so that the "study" proves his point, there is the fact that the so called study cited is ancient, surely there must be something more recent, particularly if it's true.

She said studies, the text said studies, it is dishonest to change it, particularly since they probably can't find more than one, so I want them to either admit they lied to begin with and there are no studies, and that they are trying to cover up their lies, or come up with more than one ancient and discredited one.

I just missed where you said "plural" and you are correct. Given the lack of credibility of the author of this one they did manage to produce was bad enough.

jimlongley wrote:Talk about dishonesty. She said, and the original print article did too, that "we did other research and found that there are notable studies . . ."

But now, in the ultimate act of dishonesty, they have changed the print to state "A notable study . . ."

I still want to know what other "notable studies" (plural) they found, or was that a lie too?

'

She responded and said it was the Donohue study at http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewconten ... hn_donohue" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Finally, an apology to the group. I should not have chased a rabbit, but stuck to demanding what the "notable studies" that were not revealed in the news story were. As Matthew, I apologize for allowing personality to enter in, and mods are of course welcome to delete/lock as they see fit....esp since there is an earlier thread running.

mreavis wrote:

wgoforth wrote:

mreavis wrote:I'm 25.

Too ladys I was actually talking to I do apologize if I offended you. Tone is hard to interpret on the internet. When I said "go use your brain" for example. I didn't mean to suggest you never had or needed to try it out. I was saying let your brain do the work for you not the media. If you reread what I said in a friendly but lecture sort of way you will get achieve the tone I was going for.


However, WGoforth, as the one I keep hearing complaints from, it easily could be argued the things you have been facebook messaging me and a few of the post on this topic are just as insulting to me.

Again though I never meant to insult anyone directly and I am entitled to my opinion. I do apologize one last time if I offended anyone. And I do expect you to leave me, my facebook, and my reputation in unconcerned communities alone. *I* don't want this to have to be a bigger deal.

I'm famous! lol. Hardly see how the CHL community is an unconcerned community.
I couldn't find this on the news story comments, where is it??

The article is completely related to the forums. The slander against me, like the lines you have started to remove from your previous posts are what I am referring too. I agree this should be dealt with personally. And I apologize more than once. We can let it go or you can keep making a bigger deal out of it. I don't want this to become a bigger issue but if you keep slandering me, facebook messaging me, or attempt to create further problems in my life I promise you it will become a bigger issue.

(1) I edited the post here as I didn't realize it was you, but I thought it was forwarded from the news site. Once I realized it was you, my comment made no sense, so I edited it. I note you also edited, we all do.
(2) Anyone is welcomed to look at the public comments made on the news site, and here are my only private messages to you on FB for all to see. What slander there might be is beyond me. I am leaving your replies out as those are your property.
Hi Matthew... don't know if you realize it, but many responding concerning the stats given in the gun story were from CHL instructors. I am both CHL as well as NRA instructor. I only say this as you stated that your working at Red's may mean you know what you are talking about. Whether you realize it or not, your tone was very insulting, and you have become a topic on the Texas CHL forum, and one lady expressed she would never go there again. FWIW.
next:
Thought you might like to see how you affected one lady http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=55931" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
next:
Thinking your not seeing the trees for the forest. You state that we are as biased as they. So that means unless we come to your conclusion we are biased? Isn't that pretty biased?? Considering the age and length of time as instructors and training, isn't it possible we have already studied this and come to honest conclusions based on facts??
next:
Its not I that found you insulting, but several good ladies were hurt by statements, not tones, you made. No level of merit? Hmm, and working part time at a shooting range does?

As you, I am ready to drop it, but thought it neccessary to answer charges of slander.

mreavis wrote:I'm 25.

Too ladys I was actually talking to I do apologize if I offended you. Tone is hard to interpret on the internet. When I said "go use your brain" for example. I didn't mean to suggest you never had or needed to try it out. I was saying let your brain do the work for you not the media. If you reread what I said in a friendly but lecture sort of way you will get achieve the tone I was going for.


However, WGoforth, as the one I keep hearing complaints from, it easily could be argued the things you have been facebook messaging me and a few of the post on this topic are just as insulting to me.

Again though I never meant to insult anyone directly and I am entitled to my opinion. I do apologize one last time if I offended anyone. And I do expect you to leave me, my facebook, and my reputation in unconcerned communities alone. *I* don't want this to have to be a bigger deal.

I'm famous! lol. Hardly see how the CHL community is an unconcerned community.
I couldn't find this on the news story comments, where is it??

Interesting that this Matthew Reavis who works at Reds in Pfluggerville says we are as biased as the other side.....sooooo if we have researched and come to a different conclusion we are biased. Doesn't that mean the only unbiased people are the ones that agree with him?? Isn't THAT biased?? Hoping he is representative of their staff. I doubt they would appreciate knowing he is saying "HE knows what he istalking about as he works at Reds."

Divided Attention wrote:WGoforth - I "did my homework" and discovered the "insultor" is likely early 20's -funny how as he commented as I "learn how the world works" or something to that effect.

just wow!

Now you know when you and I were that age we knew everything!

Divided Attention wrote:I have just been accused of being a hypocrit for asking them to state their source.

According to another poster I needed to "use my brain" and look up the reports that were clearly stated in the video.... he continued on to accuse me of taking the MSM as the only source. When countered that I had read several studies/reports and refused to let MSM be my soul source and that he shouldn't assume from a few sentences that I and others were waiting to be spoonfed he called me a hypocrit. I am done responding, and this is why I usually don't weigh in on these things, but he burned my chaps! I will not be going to the range he works at ever, as he portraying the stereotypical, shortsighted "bubba" at the counter - especially where us "gals" are concerned!

stepping down off the soapbox - thank you for the vent time! I put the video up earlier this morning, that thread can be closed since it is running here as well now.

Sounded like he was still thinking of the FBI studies mentioned earlier in the video. I noticed a couple of folks jumped him about being insulting.
I apologize as I searched and didn't see this video story posted here before I posted. If you had it first, mods please lock mine. Would you show us the link to yours so we can follow that one?

Thanks for having already commented on it! We don't need to let the media get away with such.

The report was very good...untill she put in her unsubtantiated claim at the end, that "several notable studies have shown violent crimes go up with gun sales. Ya'll need to floood the comment section below the story.

http://weareaustin.com/news/top-stories ... 4829581054" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;