I have to second Wendy's post. Over the years, the admins have heard many complaints about these threads of yours, Ann, and no one has ever disagreed with you on your main point.
What irritates many people here is the way that you present your pov.
For example - I've been greatly puzzled over the past few days as to why you've been so selective in your reporting of the German shooting. "8 out of 9 students killed were female." But the gunman didn't kill 9 people. He killed 15. You've airbrushed a chunk of his victims out of the tragedy as though they didn't exist. I have no idea why you've done that - except that, of course, 8 out of 9 sounds much more sensational than 8 out of 15. But I find it disrespectful to those victims you've chosen to ignore. It certainly gives the strong impression that you think they don't matter. You don't need to concentrate on them - but they deserve at least to be included in the total victim count.
Secondly, this:
(There are other such cases too: a case in Japan caused the deaths of many girls and one boy, and at a school shooting in England or Scotland, eleven of the the sixteen dead children were girls, the most seriously injured of the survivors was a girl and the only uninjured child was a boy.)
In the past, the first time you used the case of Thomas Hamilton, here in Dunblane, Scotland, to prove your theory that gunman in such cases target female victims, I provided you with incontrovertible evidence that Hamilton did not. Eye witnesses in the classroom stated quite clearly in court under oath that he stepped into the room and immediately began firing indiscriminately. (I've since seen a documentary on the case in which one of the teachers who survived makes that point even more strongly.)
Yet, even though Hamilton doesn't fit into your target group and you know that, you have continued to use this example to prove your point in other threads and now this one. I find that deeply offensive. There are clearly enough examples of female victimisation in the world without having to invent any or distort cases which have no relevance to your theory.
Perhaps if you were more willing to accept corrections to your 'facts' when they are wrong and not trim or ignore data or victims to cram tragedies like this into your theory, rather than finding genuine examples of it, you might find more people willing to listen to your pov.
No one is arguing with you that such incidents exist. We're all as capable as you are of seeing what goes on in the world around us. But your habit of distortion to prove it weakens your case considerably in the eyes of many here and just irks rather than provokes empathy with your point.
Just a thought. This is an Off Topic folder and so long as you keep to the rules of the mbs - which you have as far as I know - then you're entitled to bring up any topic you like. Which is what we've always told those wanting you shut down. Your threads are always well-signposted in the headers, so those upset by them can ignore and read elsewhere.
But if, as you've stated recently, your intent isn't to upset, anger or rile other members up but to engage us in supporting you in your cause to highlight and protest such incidents, how you present your case and engage us and keeping a tight rein on your research are things you might want to consider when you present your next thread.
LabRat
