Was this absolutely necessary? - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: Was this absolutely necessary?

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by wolf_fire View Post
    Apparently the story got edited today after midnight. There is no mention about what gun was used in the article now.

    Could it be? Noooo... maybe? Professionalism in journalism? Oh, wait no... they deliberately put false information in... got people stirred up (look at the comments) then retracted it without mentioning what they retracted. That's not professionalism, that's trickery and cowardice.
    100% agreed. I was a little confused by this thread because when I read the article I saw no mention of an AR-15 except in the link. Makes sense now.

    Changing such a large part of the story without printing an official retraction, apologizing for the misinformation or even explaining why the article was changed is complete and utter cowardice.

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Greenville SC
    Posts
    1,086
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by AndeyHall View Post
    Yeah but I was specifically referring to the short bit about how the "AR-15 was originally designed for the armed forces". How was that in any way relevant to the report?
    Aside from being irrelevant, that particular statement is blatantly wrong.

    Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2
    Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.

  4. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by kerb View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AndeyHall View Post
    Yeah but I was specifically referring to the short bit about how the "AR-15 was originally designed for the armed forces". How was that in any way relevant to the report?
    Aside from being irrelevant, that particular statement is blatantly wrong.

    Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2
    How is that statement blatantly wrong? ArmaLite developed the AR-10 as a competitor in a contract contest for a new US military rifle. It lost to the M-14 in the 1957 trials. It redesigned the AR-10 into the AR-15 in another bid to sell a rifle to the military. The design was rejected by the US Army and ArmaLite licensed the rights to the design to Colt who successfully sold some AR-15s to the US Air Force in 1962. The AR-15 didn't enter the civilian market until 1963 when Colt started making semi-auto versions. The US Army came full circle and adopted the AR-15 as its new standard issue rifle in 1964 designating it the M-16.

    The Colt AR-15 entered the civilian market before the M-16 was adopted by the US Army on a mass scale, however it WAS originally developed by ArmaLite in a bid to win a contract from the military.

    With that said, still irrelevant to the article.

  5. Quote Originally Posted by jcreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wolf_fire View Post
    Apparently the story got edited today after midnight. There is no mention about what gun was used in the article now.

    Could it be? Noooo... maybe? Professionalism in journalism? Oh, wait no... they deliberately put false information in... got people stirred up (look at the comments) then retracted it without mentioning what they retracted. That's not professionalism, that's trickery and cowardice.
    100% agreed. I was a little confused by this thread because when I read the article I saw no mention of an AR-15 except in the link. Makes sense now.

    Changing such a large part of the story without printing an official retraction, apologizing for the misinformation or even explaining why the article was changed is complete and utter cowardice.
    Yeah I didn't realize they would be changing the article. Normally they just write a new one when the full story comes to light.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast