My issue with the story was the full auto weapons part. There have been three or four crimes committed with full auto guns since 1934. Essentially, it just doesn’t happen, and if it did, it would be easily search-able on the interweb.
Maybe they were tommy guns and it was a really old Howard Johnson’s.
They weren’t after the Hope Diamond by any chance, were they?
Again, part of my point is that since there are plenty of such stories it makes this ones dismissal harder to understand rather than easier. Not doubt, or healthy skepticism , or just the reasonable acknowledgment that it is is only a discussion board story, but outright dismissal and an assumption of bullshit. As I just posted in the other thread. What are the chances that an average citizen will be involved in a gun related crime? Fairly small when the category is all citizens? How about a subset of that. Crimes in which an armed civilian is exchanging shots with and armed criminal. Very damed unlikely isn’t it, although we know it does happen. When we’re already in a highly unlikely category in which we might expect outrageous and unlikely things to happen, why be so quick to conclude it’s all bullshit? That’s what I don’t get.
I haven’t adamantly professed it’s truth and that’s not the point. Am I positive? Of course not. It’s possible my friend has some personality quirk I haven’t noticed and completely fabricated the whole story. I doubt it because I know him as a person. What surprised and annoyed me is the bad reasoning that led people to dismiss it rather than simply doubt it. I hear anecdotal stories all the time and I understand that stories get exaggerated in the retelling or people repeat fiction as truth. My stance is “I don’t know if that’s true” and that’s the end. I know outrageous things can and do happen so I try not to jump to conclusions based on sparse details. Sometimes I think “that doesn’t really make sense” but that’s accompanied by the awareness of a lack of sufficient details.
No doubt. I allowed it to get under my skin enough to vent here.
I chose the story because it made a point relevant to the thread and it came from a source I personally trust. I repeat, the point stands even if it contains some amount of embellishment and I said so in the thread. Even if it’s a proposed scenario not based in real life the point is pretty easy to grasp so demanding a cite is irrelevant. Discuss the point. Arguing over whether it’s true or not is a hijack of that discussion. That’s why I stopped talking about it there. I’m aware of calls for cites in GD. I also know about hijacks and decided to halt one.
Sigh! Of course it isn’t which is why I’ve said that several times in both threads.
Upon another posters request I asked my friend for more details. I suppose it was a mistake to tell him strangers on a discussion board thought he or I were lying. His understandable response was he just doesn’t care whether nameless faceless people on a discussion board believe and doesn’t have to prove anything.
Not if it isn’t true.
Not if it isn’t true.
That only further damages your credibility.
Not if it isn’t true.
You have no fucking clue how much truth there is in it, if any at all. What’s this “small amount” deal?
And you should have known better than to post *fiction *as evidence related to a discussion of the world of fact. You really should have known better than to complain about others not being convinced of your position by it.
What part of “bullshit” do you not understand? :rolleyes:
I’m willing to vent when I’m frustrated rather than spend time proving myself or my good friend to skeptics with attitudes. Skeptics without pissy attitudes are fine and I’ve said so. Screw your hyperbole.
1 I wasn’t looking to excuse anything.
2. Over and over again people keep claiming the robber in the drugstore was unconscious when we don’t actually know that. While calling bullshit on my story they simultaneously declare facts they can’t possibly know with certainty. That’s kinda my point here. Try and fathom the difference between what you know to be true or untrue and what you merely suspect is true or untrue. Try to understand a reasonable conclusion is limited by available information. To form conclusions based on sparse details and then call them reasonable and logical isn’t either and it annoys the hell out of me. So sue me.
My story isn’t implausible starting from the category of gun play between civilians and armed criminals. One would expect that category to contain outrageous details. Given the sparse details I understand the “it doesn’t make sense” reaction and a lot of unanswered questions. I expect people talking about reason and logic to factor in their lack of information.
If I knew that occasionally people were abducted by aliens like we know that occasionally civilians and criminals shoot at each other, then yes, that would be my perfectly reasonable reaction.
I’ve heard more absurd stories, and they were true.
Seems like the Ersland as murderer camp has a lot invested in this fight.
It’s just not that unbelievable a story. So it being true apparently threatens to give Ersland a valid reason to finish off Parker.
And MEs can be wrong.
Reminds me of the Mall Ninja. Does Howard Johnson’s have a video arcade? Maybe the thieves’ were after one of the new Mortal Kombat games.
Cosmosdan could have made up a much simpler story to illustrate that a BG can wreak havoc if not stopped completely. Why go to the trouble of making it so “unlikely”?
One friend to another friend not a long series of people. His older brother, to him to me.
What you’re describing fits the true life story that the thread is discussing doesn’t it? We do know that these unlikely rare events do happen in real life right?
Armed robberies do happen. I never presented anyone as the heroic gunslinging protagonist. He was a manager trying to protect himself and his employees just as the druggist was. Real life gun related crimes often contains some Hollywood elements and omits others.
you’ll notice he didn’t shoot the guns out of their hands or throw a kitchen knife to stop them. Nothing exploded. Nobody reached in their utility belt for a smoke grenade.
He was scared and trying to function in the face of an extraordinary circumstance.
Well, sure, everyone has. However, you don’t believe absurd stories until someone offers up evidence that they are true. You also don’t use absurd FOAF stories to back up your side of a debate, unless you’re prepared to defend it with evidence.
This is the kind of story you tell at a bar, where nobody cares about, or expects evidence.
I didn’t see anyone accuse him of making it up himself. People were accusing him of being gullible.
He isn’t being asked to to prove anything, he’s being asked for one or more details to support YOU. If he cares naught about supporting you, then he’s not a friend.
However, that’s also the standard answer if the story is made up.
Zoe, let us see if Hal Briston can help,clearly he has a better database.
I did try to locate the one murder I was slightly involved with (knew the murderer, so the DA interviewed me by phone) and I got plenty of hits. It occurred around 25 years ago.
Accepting your description of your job as true you’d know more about that than I would. I tried shooting rather than skylight. My question would be , given the sheer number of violent gun related crimes that occur in this country every year how likely is it you’d find one that occurred years ago. Did you put in a time frame for the search?
I come from rural Maine so a shooting is big news and everybody hears about it but here in Nashville we won’t read about every shooting. This story has elements that would raise it above the average armed robbery for sure but we’re still talking about a needle in a haystack aren’t we?
Says the same guy who’s posted 101 times to that very thread – or about one of every six posts to it! Talk about “having a lot invested.”
Nutbar.
If you’re about ten or twelve, maybe.
Sure. Meanwhile Ersland is a proven liar. Plus I saw the video from all angles. Guess who I’m going to believe?
Run along now. Surely your gun needs polishing…or something.
No, you’d try the more uncommon words, not the common words. Which is why the addition of the city would make this a easy search, for such a notorious crime, even if it occurred a decade ago. Like I said, I found my murder easily, and it occurred 25 years ago.
I’m particularly amused at how cosmosdan just assumed that I called bullshit without even trying to google it myself before posting. 
Allow me to illustrate :
- we do know government black ops happen. What are the chances that any event is a government black ops ? Fairly small, right ?
- How about a subset of that. Government black ops directed against the government’s citizenry. Very damned unlikely, isn’t it ? Although we know it does happen.
- When we’re already in a highly unlikely category in which we might expect outrageous and unlikely things to happen, why be so quick to conclude “The CIA did 9/11” is all bullshit ?
The point is, that story does have a chance of happening. Just as a rock hanging in mid-air rather than falling to the ground does have a chance of happening. Would you doubt gravity ?
Bottomline is, at the end of the day the onus is on you to make a choice : either it doesn’t matter whether the story is factual or not, and you start with “consider this hypothetical…”, or the veracity of it does matter and, again, the onus is on you to produce even token evidence.
Well, lots of people knew Madoff as a person. I’m just sayin’ :D. There’s a way, way higher probability that your friend bullshitted you than the story being true. Occam’s Razor tells me I should base my reasoning on the most probable explanation.
Which, admitedly, doesn’t mean it allows me to consider the alternative as definitely untrue. But I fail to see the *practical *difference between the two positions.
So you’re prepared to believe in alien abductions ? Lizard people ? The Illuminati and/or The Protocols of the Elders of Zion ? Scientology ? Biker mice from Mars ? The possibility that Dan Brown is really a talented writer cunningly hiding behind awful, awful prose ? I presume not, because I presume you’re not a loon. Which might seem naive of me on the net and all, but I consider it common courtesy. All I ask is that you extend that same courtesy to me.
It’s one thing to allow for the possibility of the nonsensical, and another to consider all possibilities as equally valid.
And I understand. God knows I’ve wanted to strangle other posters for less than that. The world needs a groinpunch-over-network device, I swear. YouTube is my cite.
All of this post is intended for the future (or present) even keel you.
Then just call it a hypothetical, and be done with the hijacking once and for all - then we can all argue on your point on the merit, rather than having to deal with the factuality of the hypothetical as a factor. The added bonus of it is, you don’t even have to keep your hypothetical in the tabloid section of the news stand to make us consider it in our thought process.
Not that I think the point you’re trying to get across really needs… well, getting across. IMO, all reasonable posters on the “Ersland is guilty” side did consider the possibility that Parker could have been dangerous, or that Ersland felt that way. They simply opined that it was more unlikely than not, given the facts we got. Just as all reasonable posters on the “Ersland did nothing wrong” side did consider the possibility that Ersland might have wanted revenge, or justice or whatever, but opined that it was more unlikely than not, given the facts we got.
There are extremists on both sides, of course, but you’re never going to convince them since by definition, extremists let their prior convictions take precedence over doubt or reason or debate or such vile, base things as facts.
And I think that particular debate is done for all intensive porpoises. All relevant points have been made cogently and convincingly on both sides, all participants have made up their mind by now, or have enough material to make up their own mind, and it’s doubtful the Snopes hypothetical is going to win over a swing poster/lurker, y’know ? But then, stranger things happen at sea 
And who is the one counting posts? Heh, heh.
How is Ersland a proven liar?
Gun is polished and ready.