TexasCHLforum.com

This is a specious argument. The people who read the information and decide to never go spend their money there in the first place are somehow not allowed to have an opinion while the ones who have spent money there and possibly bought lifetime memberships and are personally invested in the place's success, or who get kickbacks for referring others there, or who are hired by them, are somehow the objective and impartial sources of information to be trusted according to your model.

It seems to me that all over the internet, people who come into contact with the information about them form their conclusions and then are bombarded by a small group of posters who apparently, by their own admission, scour the internet and post to all of these conversations their defenses of the place. The two (edit: apparently I missed one and the count is now three) posters here who defend them, none of whom are regular forum participants here from what I can tell and one (edit: two?) of whom is brand new and signed up to post to this thread, said they're having this same conversation all over the net.

I've not seen or posted to this topic elsewhere, myself. How many times have the rest of us gone around this mulberry bush? It seems like people all over the 'net are independently saying the place is too great a risk and choosing not to go there while a small group of folks are spending large amounts of time all over the 'net trying to put out all the flames. If it was so great, why wouldn't any of our normal forum participants, someone those here trusted, have experience or know someone who does? Why would strangers need to be brought in to make mile-long posts about how we can't trust our own? It doesn't surprise me that the company in question requires that type of defense.

I think the evidence stands for itself so I will not be posting to this thread any more.

Ha ha ha ha ha. I find that response amusing. I do not judge you. I commented on your tone and choice of words and the way they are perceived by others, especially those with delicate feminine sensitivities like mine.

A vocal minority? It seems that you're the 1-man minority who has an agenda of promoting the place for some unknown reason (carrying over intensification from previous conversations on the topic, being hired by them, whatever) and there are so few who are supportive that you puff yourself up and try to shut down any conversation that disagrees with you. Indeed, your tone has pulled in people like myself who have no knowledge of the place or previous experience with it and it helped to cement any concern we have over its past.

You think they're improperly maligned, have problem records that are about even with other similar venues when compared per capita, that they are a great value for the money with a wonderful mission, and have little to no blame in the accidents that have occurred. OK, your position is known and understood. And as a completely disinterested party, I shared my reservations that I wouldn't trust my life to the odds that you are right because it doesn't appear likely to me, or apparently to their sheriffs or the deceased's family or any of the many in a class-action lawsuit against them or the many reasonable instructors and CHL holders here. And your response is that we shouldn't be allowed to discuss this and a demand to close the thread because you are done with it.

I have a suggestion: if you are done with the thread, stop posting. Anyone else interested in continuing the conversation along with natural side-conversations that arise from the ongoing primary discussion will do so, as is common etiquette and protocol on internet discussion forums.

I don't know anything about the place, but I can tell you as a consumer that a place which has 4 accidental shootings, a zip line death, and a class action lawsuit filed against it is not a place I would feel safe going for training with deadly weapons. They're in a remote location which takes first responders over 30 minutes to access and they apparently didn't have people sufficiently trained in CPR much less have an AED available or accessible. If that's how they respond with a zip line catastrophe, imagine what would happen if you were shot!

Well, we don't have to imagine, because they have a history of that, too. These issues, everything from the fire safety problems to the wrongful death, all point to poor leadership and training. Combined with remote location and high risk activities, it's a recipe for disaster. No amount of swag could get me to disregard that. The uncharitable and hostile defense of the place combined with the minimization of a person's death that I'm seeing here just reassures me that I'm right.