Woodlawn-MLK and Ainsworth (Portland: violent crime, how much, to live)

[hamellr]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

Yeah, seems to be a common trend with this poster, which is a shame because I was honestly interested where their information came from and was looking forward to having a real discussion on this topic, but it seems the poster just wishes to resort to random antics when cornered with a question.

Exactly! If I was wrong about my figures, I want to be corrected. I am certainly far from being a Portland apologists, but the city doesn't need help to be worse then it already is. If it's even more then a ^&@!#^%&hole then I think it is, then I'd like to actually know that.

But I have never been able to correlate what is being said in this forum, especially in relation to crime stats, with what is actually being reported. And I have a REALLY hard time believing that even the Oregonian would be skipping murders and gang related incidents. Willamette Week and Portland Tribune I could see doing that, but the Oregonian panders to the "it was better back in the old days," crowd too much to not do so.

[kyled]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word

Very relevant to the current topic.

[pdxMIKEpdx]

Chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp

(crickets)

[Steve Pickering]

Originally Posted by pdxMIKEpdx

Chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp

(crickets)

Not so much crickets as your intentional atempt to start an argument indicated. More like the thread has run it's course.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by Steve Pickering

Not so much crickets as your intentional atempt to start an argument indicated. More like the thread has run it's course.

Of course it did, you failed to provide any links to back up your wild claims, thus it was only a one sided forum.

[pdxMIKEpdx]

Originally Posted by Steve Pickering

Not so much crickets as your intentional atempt to start an argument indicated. More like the thread has run it's course.

No, Steve.

We all just find it very interesting that when you can't prove your "facts", you either abandon the thread, or say it has "run it's course", or beat around the bush some more, or try to get the last word in somehow...
But still, your opinion, because that's what it is, has not been substantiated.

By your fine example, I can say anything I want about anyone or anything, my word should be taken as absolute gospel, and I don't have to prove any of it.
I don't think that's how it works there, buddy!


So once more, where did you get your facts about shootings in Portland?
That's been asked now about a dozen times!

Either man up and admit that it's your opinion, or present us with the facts that you used to draw your conclusion.
It's that simple!

Then the thread will have "run it's course".




BTW, "attempt" has more than one T in it.

[Steve Pickering]

When you start repeating the same Ol' Mantra, its run it's course.

I stated my facts. You accept them or you don't, I also told you prove me wrong if you think my facts are incorrect. You have not done that. As I said do your own research. If you chose not to, fine, but ranting the same spiel over and over just makes you sound like a fool or a spoiled brat.

It is maybe time to close this thread as all a couple of you want to do is argue.

[pdxMIKEpdx]

See what I mean?
Beating around the bush again.

By your fine example, I can say anything I want about anyone or anything, my word should be taken as absolute gospel, and I don't have to prove any of it.

I may sound like a fool or a spoiled brat to you, but to everyone else, you are sounding like a pompous know it all blowhard.
I'm done.
Looks like this one is a draw, since we've tried and can't find any evidence to corroborate your statement, and you won't provide any.


BTW, this is the definition of the word "fact" from Wikipedia:
A fact (derived from the Latin factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case.
The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be proven to correspond to experience.
Standard reference works are often used to check facts.
Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments.



For the last time, with all due respect, either man up and admit that it's your opinion, or present us (verify) the supposed facts that you used to draw your conclusion.

To be honest, I think the reason you won't, is because you can't.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by Steve Pickering

When you start repeating the same Ol' Mantra, its run it's course.

I stated my facts. You accept them or you don't, I also told you prove me wrong if you think my facts are incorrect. You have not done that. As I said do your own research. If you chose not to, fine, but ranting the same spiel over and over just makes you sound like a fool or a spoiled brat.

It is maybe time to close this thread as all a couple of you want to do is argue.

You never stated any facts, you just stated your opinion and called them "my facts" isn't the same as presenting actual facts. Until you actually present real facts, you comments are nothing more than opinion, thus nothing to be proven wrong because they are just opinions.

Let me know when you find a link that backs up your wild claims.

[Steve Pickering]

So do you have information to the contrary?