TexasCHLforum.com

Subject: COLUMBINE STUDENT'S FATHER 12 YEARS LATER !!

This is powerful .. . .

COLUMBINE STUDENT'S FATHER 12 YEARS LATER !!

Guess our national leaders didn't expect this. On Thursday, Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado, was invited to address the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee. What he said to our national leaders during this special session of Congress was painfully truthful.

They were not prepared for what he was to say, nor was it received well. It needs to be heard by every parent, every teacher, every politician, every sociologist, every psychologist, and every so-called expert! These courageous words spoken by Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating, and deeply personal. There is no doubt that God sent this man as a voice crying in the wilderness.. The following is a portion of the transcript:

"Since the dawn of creation there has been both good & evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers.

"The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart.

"In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder I would be their strongest opponent

I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy -- it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best.

Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
Your words are empty air.
You've stripped away our heritage,
You've outlawed simple prayer.
Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere,
And ask the question "Why?"
You regulate restrictive laws,
Through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand,
That God is what we need!


"Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation's history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact. What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs -- politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.

"As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America , and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA -- I give to you a sincere challenge.. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone!
My daughter's death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!"
- Darrell Scott

That's beautiful. And I can well imagine how poorly it was received.

I hate to, well, drizzle on this parade... Snopes disagrees with everything except the actual testimony and with who gave it.

Dave2 wrote:I hate to, well, drizzle on this parade... Snopes disagrees with everything except the actual testimony and with who gave it.

It looks like they disagree with the framing of the testimony (the editorial preceding the statement given), but include a PDF of the statement: http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/scott.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When I read your comment, I incorrectly assumed the only accurate part of the e-mail was that the Darrell Scott referenced did provide testimony, but not as reported.

Regardless of the circumstances, Darrell Scott is a terrific speaker. When I was in college, he came to speak at Campus Crusade. He shared the story of his daughter, who sounded like a truely remarkable young woman, and her courage in faith during the final moments of her life. He also shared his thoughts about faith, its importance to the founding fathers and even about the futility of gun control. There were not many dry eyes in the house that night and I think a lot of my peers were left questioning some of their beliefs regarding the efficacy of gun control.

I no longer view Snopes as reliable authority for the accuracy of anything. It was once known as UrbanLegends.com and changed to Snopes for reasons unknown. I don't know if the name change was the result of ownership change or some other reason.

I foolishly assumed that the website did what it claimed to do; honestly investigate and evaluate Internet claims. However, a few years back, they published something about the NRA that was utterly false and it was so blatant it had to be intentional. Even a child could have "investigated" quickly and easily. During Obama's run for the White House, Snopes.com defended him by claiming many accurate reports were false and they continued this practice after he was elected. Unless I'm mistaken, I believe Snopes gets funding from questionable sources close to Obama and the Democratic Party. If so, that hardly makes for unbiased reporting on many issues.

They may get some things right, perhaps even most things, but once proven to be liars, I don't trust anything they publish. After all, how can you trust someone who says, "I won't lie to you . . . much."

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I no longer view Snopes as reliable authority for the accuracy of anything. It was once known as UrbanLegends.com and changed to Snopes for reasons unknown. I don't know if the name change was the result of ownership change or some other reason.

While I agree with the specific issue you cite, Snopes _is_ a reliable source of information, but should never be considered _authoritative_. What is valuable is that they provide supporting links to information that helps prove or disprove a claim. Snopes, like Wikipedia or any other aggregatively-edited site, is subject to errors. That hardly cause to dismiss the value of the site as a whole. What site would you recommend people visit instead?

I used to use snopes.com on a regular basis. But I found out that they have a distinct liberal bias to how they write anything. Its not so much in the information, but in how its presented. If a liberal/leftist or Democrat messes up, they soft-pedal the mistake...if its a conservative/libertarian or Republican, the tone is completely different and negative. I'm not saying they are WRONG on a factual basis; I'm saying I don't like their tone.

I still check Snopes from time to time. I have an inexplicable filter for what subject matter they are likely to be accurate on. What did it for me was the blatant way they poo-pooed the photo story of an anaconda that had eaten a child. The final one was of the snake opened up and the lower torso of the boy being visible. They said the last one looked simply "like a bad fake". I don't know how many dead people Mr. Snopes has seen but the mucous and blood covering the corpse, the cyanosis in the limbs and an ankle still caught in the viscera all point to an authentic picture. As to the quality this was taken from a South American news photo and basically they called dozens of grieving parents (yes this happens fairly often) liars. That did them in as far as I am concerned.

Linky.(Graphic)

Dragonfighter wrote:I still check Snopes from time to time. I have an inexplicable filter for what subject matter they are likely to be accurate on. What did it for me was the blatant way they poo-pooed the photo story of an anaconda that had eaten a child. The final one was of the snake opened up and the lower torso of the boy being visible. They said the last one looked simply "like a bad fake". I don't know how many dead people Mr. Snopes has seen but the mucous and blood covering the corpse, the cyanosis in the limbs and an ankle still caught in the viscera all point to an authentic picture. As to the quality this was taken from a South American news photo and basically they called dozens of grieving parents (yes this happens fairly often) liars. That di them in as far as I am concerned.

Linky.(Graphic)

That doesn't have any bearing on whether or not the photo is a fake. Just because what the photo purports to represent as a whole is "fake" doesn't mean the individual elements used to create it are "fake." In this case both the snake and the victim could be "real" but unrelated images composited to make a single image that is "fake." I can't tell much from any of the images because they're so small, but the image of the snake and victim together, even at the small size exhibited, does show signs of of the kind of manipulation that a not too proficient compositor would use to hide his tracks --specifically, high contrast, low resolution, and lack of detail in the parts of the images that would be joined to make a composite.

Heartland Patriot wrote:I used to use snopes.com on a regular basis. But I found out that they have a distinct liberal bias to how they write anything. Its not so much in the information, but in how its presented. If a liberal/leftist or Democrat messes up, they soft-pedal the mistake...if its a conservative/libertarian or Republican, the tone is completely different and negative. I'm not saying they are WRONG on a factual basis; I'm saying I don't like their tone.

On this issue we very much agree.

So, what does a conservative have that's equivalent of snopes? I just don't see anything that's a) comprehensive or b) reliable _enough_. Until that happens, we can use snopes with a jaded eye.

VMI77 wrote:

Dragonfighter wrote:<SNIP>

Linky.(Graphic)

<SNIP> I can't tell much from any of the images because they're so small, but the image of the snake and victim together, even at the small size exhibited, does show signs of of the kind of manipulation that a not too proficient compositor would use to hide his tracks --specifically, high contrast, low resolution, and lack of detail in the parts of the images that would be joined to make a composite.

We're getting OT here but I would answer this and then leave it. Have you ever used a low resolution camera, or if old enough an Instamatic? High contrast and low detail are earmarks of such devices and an artifact from reproduction. Also having taken many pictures in South America (And the Pacific NW for that matter) lens fogging is an annoying reality.

To the specifics. The boy's pants are soaked in mucous and blood, his right ankle is still stuck (the gullet has contracted around it) in viscera, the stomach has been sheathed back, the legs are wet with mucous and cyanotic and even magnifying to where it pixelates you cannot see a point where the picture was "joined". In fact, the photos I find suspicious are always "too good". At any rate, discrediting a photo by simply saying, "It looks like a bad fake," and without further analysis shows an extreme bias.

These incidents happen more often than we care to think about, but the Amazonians are too ignorant to know what killed their son or daughter, right?

OldCannon wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I no longer view Snopes as reliable authority for the accuracy of anything. It was once known as UrbanLegends.com and changed to Snopes for reasons unknown. I don't know if the name change was the result of ownership change or some other reason.

While I agree with the specific issue you cite, Snopes _is_ a reliable source of information, but should never be considered _authoritative_. What is valuable is that they provide supporting links to information that helps prove or disprove a claim. Snopes, like Wikipedia or any other aggregatively-edited site, is subject to errors. That hardly cause to dismiss the value of the site as a whole. What site would you recommend people visit instead?

While I agree with the gist of your comments, I'm almost certain that Snopes is run by 2 people (a couple), and is not aggregatively edited like Wikipedia. I put more faith in Wikipedia, but I find snopes to be more interesting. I would never use either as a sole-source authority.

OldCannon wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I no longer view Snopes as reliable authority for the accuracy of anything. It was once known as UrbanLegends.com and changed to Snopes for reasons unknown. I don't know if the name change was the result of ownership change or some other reason.

While I agree with the specific issue you cite, Snopes _is_ a reliable source of information, but should never be considered _authoritative_. What is valuable is that they provide supporting links to information that helps prove or disprove a claim. Snopes, like Wikipedia or any other aggregatively-edited site, is subject to errors. That hardly cause to dismiss the value of the site as a whole. What site would you recommend people visit instead?

I don't have a site to recommend; I do my own research. I wish there was a single site that saved me the time to verify claims, but there isn't. I'm not telling you to dismiss the value of the site; I'm telling you I have dismissed the value of the site.

Chas.

I don't trust Snopes either.
Oh, sure, if I want to look up an urban legend they are one source, but Truth or Fiction (http://truthorfiction.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) works as well for that.
The word is that Snopes is funded by George Soros. I have no way of verifying if that is true, but Soros is an anti-gun liberal.
I caught Snopes in a "Lie of omission" a few years back. (I don't remember the issue now.) And I sent them the correct information. (Backed up with references.)
They replied that the entry had been written before my reference was published (True.)
I asked when they would correct the entry.
Silence.
I checked back months later and they still had not changed the entry.
Remember, what you do not report can be even more powerful than what you do report.
So I don't trust Snopes.

And then there is the whole Kagan thing with Snopes that you can read about here:
http://duby325.wordpress.com/2011/08/30/snopes-no-more/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;