(05-23-2018, 10:17 AM)B2hibry Wrote:

(05-22-2018, 11:05 PM)rollerjag Wrote: Yes, I read your article, which had no link. Then I found the article, which I read Yes, the headline said there have been 22 school shootings in 2018, which is a fact, then in the beginning of the article they listed, quite clearly, what criteria was used to determine a school shooting, and then a synopsis of all 22 shootings. It was only misleading if you only read an article which told you it was misleading. Why do you think the article you linked had no link to the CNN article? In your eagerness to believe anything negative about CNN, did you bother asking yourself that question?

You cited an article, extolled it's contents, with 0 research. And you called me a parrot.

It’s fact because CNN said so? Because it met their non-normative guidlines? Your lack of comprehension and comparative capabilities reeks! Yes, very misleading based on federal guidlines, but feel free to readily gorge on anything they put out. Where in that craptastic CNN article does it cite a reliable source? FYI, if you want to claim you researched, you may want to step away from your CNN bubble. I’ll link a site of some readily available sources so you can at least start down the path of gaining useful knowledge. In all your arm flailing and squaking you still fail to answer the questions I posed to actually address the issues, rather than this useless bickering.

https://www.fbi.gov/about/partnerships/o...-resources

Do you deny that in every one of those 22 incidents, it was a shooting of a gun at a human target in a school? Every synopsis had a link, every incident reported by other sources. Were they all mass shootings like the ones in Texas and Florida? No, but the criteria used were clearly stated in the beginning of the CNN article. You didn't know that, because you "gorged" on the article you linked, with no follow-up on your part. It fit your world view, you gobbled it up like saltines. 

The irony here is we are essentially arguing over semantics, whether or not CNN improperly used the term "school shootings", then your supposedly enlightening (though interesting, thanks) link was to an FBI site where the topic is Active Shooters. 

You brought up CNN, not me. I'm not comfortable defending CNN, they get too fixated. I merely addressed your post. My choice of morning viewing is Dan Patrick and reruns of That 70's Show. The news channels are noise. Looking at the tone of our posts, do you really have the lack of self-awareness to claim I'm the one flailing my arms? None of this affects my life in any way.

---