Jump to content

Talk:Shamrock, Texas/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Stop Editing this page

I think that all users should stop editing this page. It does not seem fair that one side of an edit war has been blocked (the IP) while the other side now has free reign to make all the changes they want.

There has be absolutely no vandalism that I can ascertain -- only edit warring that both sides are guilty of. There has been the deletion of sourced facts with no explanation of consideration given on this talk page. Please stop to consider whether or not the current editing that is happening is taking place in a fair manner. Respectfully, Berg Drop a Line ޗ pls 00:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

An administrator disagreed with your view, hence his being blocked and the page being protected. The anon-user who was "editing" was adding non-neutral content from false sources under the claim that they were "facts" when they were not. They were given nearly a month of warnings to stop before being blocked. That is more than fair. People who only edit in a disruptive manner are, of course, blocked from editing. I am not the first editor who removed those comments, BTW. If you check the article's history, you will see this has been going on for a month and that multiple editors have warned the user and removed the false content. As for stopping editing, why should anyone else stop editing? If people are making appropriate contributions, they should not have to stop editing because of the actions of one vandal. I personally am currently making a few expansions/additions that are completely appropriate per the city MOS to include some of the very basic city information the article is missing. Unlike the anonymous user, I am properly sourcing all of my additions from reliable sources and being sure to adhere to a NEUTRAL point-of-view. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
hmm... interesting reply. So you are not willing to discuss this? I don't think it's as black and white as you make it out to be. An administrator protected the page on good faith from you that it was truly vandalism that was occurring. I am not sure this was vandalism. And no discussion has been carried out with this IP at all. And, by the way, if you look down the list, I was here editing and interacting with this IP a month ago... before you in fact. This shows itself to be an edit war, primarily between two parties. Berg Drop a Line ޗ pls 01:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
To discuss what, in particular, beyond your request that I stop editing, which is unnecessary and not really an appropriate request when I have made only proper edits to the article? Have I made a single edit to the article since his block that is controversial? No. Nor did I make any before. I simply redid the removal of inappropriate content after someone requested the Texas Project keep an eye on the article because of this on-going issue. The IP received warnings on other IPs. His edits were vandalism. Please look at his "sources." Two are the front pages of news websites, one is very obviously not a neutral site in any way, shape, or form, and the other is a suspicious link claiming to be a government site. Additionally, the words he wrote were primarily unsupported by anything but the one very bad source and were not in neutral language. It was agenda driven and not an attempt to actual improve the city's article at all. WP:NPOV and WP:V are two core Wikipedia policies that this user continued to ignore. After a month of chances, yes, his edits are vandalism. He did leave a message on my talk page, but he ignored my response just as he ignored all of the edit summaries when his edits were undone and instead left a threat of physical violence. That is never appropriate. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


The Decision of an experienced and neutral Administrator on the Appropriateness of Some Edits

As per a request from Tjbergsma, I examined this issue in-depth. The disputed content was added by 216.167.133.217 (talk · contribs) and consisted of two lines:

and

that was referenced to:

At first glance, text both additions appear to be written in an extremely POV-pushing fashion. Of the five references given, the first two do not work, and the last two only link to generic news pages rather than the specific news articles required by WP:CITE. The only remaining source, www.shamrocktx.us appears to be a self-published source that falls far short of our reliable, third-party, published source criteria. Additionally I highly doubt that a reliable souce could ever be found that could be used to verify statements such as "due to local governmental corruption and abuse of power" and "for the drug and crime ring that has held a stranglehold on the area." At best these look like a clear violation of WP:OR and WP:SYN.

While a valid section that discussed corruption in Shamrock could well be added to this article, it would need to be written in a neutral tone and be properly sourced and cited to reliable, third-party, published sources. That said, I see zero salvagable content in the oft-reverted additions [1] of this IP. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of content

How about this rather novel suggestion:

Instead of striking down my facts, SUGGEST what it is that I need to provide in support of them? I can assure you that NONE of this is "fantasy" and the local people here are quite proud to have made international news at least once in the existence of the town. Even if it was a "bad experience" for some, it was seen (locally) as a hopeful new begining for others. Just an idea but, I'm not even sure that asking this question isn't "harrassment" by your standards that seem to be a bit beyond my understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.167.143.152 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 21 March 2008

Note: I am moving the below conversation from my talk page to here as I feel it is relevant to the situation and the above post, particularly the last paragraph in the quoted section from the IP.

I am not at all that familiar with your "system" of politics here so, please forgive me if I "cross over" some imaginary "line" that is not very clearly drawn for me to see. My question is as follows:

In the "Harassment will not be tolerated" statement that was sent me, I had put forth my OPINION that, just pehaps, the representatives of local media in Shamrock Texas would be forced to resort to hiring individuals to aid us in the correction of the vandalism of our city references as shown on you site.

Could some kind-hearted individual PLEASE take the time to explain to me just exactly how this can be considered any more "harrassing" than the constant deletion of information that is extremely pertinent to our community and that has been verified by many numerous governmental and media sources?

I'm NOT trying to be a "pain" but, the information sincerely is a "part of the community" and, as do many who live here, we feel that it is our only "claim to fame" in the world. (The Rick Roach drug conspiracy was the first and only time Shamrock was ever mentioned in the New York Times.)

Why can these vital (and documented) facts not be left to stand? Are you so selective that you only want your own version of the "facts" available? If that is the case, I need to approach our town council about having you remove the Shamrock Texas page altogether.

Can someone please explain this to me? It is all I ask. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.167.143.152 (talk) 03:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I seriously doubt your town council would want their city falsely listed on Wikipedia as being a drug haven. See the article talk page for a full breakdown of the inappropriateness of your entry by the administrator who blocked you. Wikipedia does not allow false use of sources and NPOV claims. We work under a system of verifiability and neutrality, based on reliable sources. Your additions are not "vital" facts nor are they documented by any of the sources you used. Also, a city can not have its Wikipedia page removed as far as I know. Public information and making legal threats is also against Wikipedia policy and could result in a permanent ban. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


Please, cite the "false sources" that you reference. I can assure you that all are 100% legitimate. It just takes a bit of verifyng. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.167.143.152 (talk) 03:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, see the article's talk page. Its all broken down for you there. As for the Rick Roach issue, he was the District Attorney for five counties, and not a single New York Times article even mentions Shamrock specifically. Nothing in the case I see is specific to Shamrock at all, but to him. Your claims of corruption, et al are completely unsupported by any reliable sources. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Again I ask: Is the USDOJ an "unsubstantiated source"?

Shamrock was Rick Roach's base of operations. It was (and still is) the "gateway of entry" (via I-40) of the stream of illicit drugs. There is still a pending investigation into the matter but, as I can see, you have already determined that all of what I say is "fantasy" jst as the locals did when I told them of the pending arrest of Roach several years back. (I'm TRYING to learn the "proper ettequitte" here. Please bear with me...)216.167.143.152 (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing on the USDOJ site supports your claims either. The link you posted doesn't work. This seems to be your own personal agenda to prove that Shamrock was his "base of operations" not backed up by any substantial evidence from a neutral, verifiable, and reliable source. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I too spent 1/2 now looking at the USDOJ site (the link didn't work, but if you remove the front gibberish down to the www, then it does). However, there is nothing there that their search engine brings up that I can find. Also, the Radio Station webpage is only a private source -- there is a YouTube video of the owner of this radio station venting his complaints, and on there he say s that he is private sole proprietor of the radio station. Therefore his site must be removed, being a non neutral point of view and unprovable to anyone but himself. Another source looked identical to the webpage of the radio station and looks to be run by the same station owner. Oh, by the way, anything still pending is way out of bounds. Berg Drop a Line ޗ pls 03:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


I am beginning to very clearly see that NOTHING is ever completely "verifiable" unless it supports your own points of view but, if you folks gove any validity at all to court documentation (complete and notarized), I would suggest that you peruse http://www.shamrockedc.com for some "verifications" thatwas good enough to meet the criteria of both the state of texas as well as the USDOJ. (Just a suggestion and not intended as "harrassment" as in "Do we need to hire people rto help keep our information accurate?"

I *still* am having a bit of a problem in seeing how this could possibly be construed as "harrassment" while the wholesale elemination of factual information is considered "acceptable". I'm sory but, you people seem to be something of an "elitist" culture here that I'm not sure I want to be involved with. I prefer to see reality and - as we ll are very well aware - reality "ain't always spotlessly clean" as you would have it if allowed to wantanly edit that reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.158.252.222 (talk) 05:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"Verifiable" is fairly easy to understand, if you'll please look at wikipedia policies like WP:V and WP:RS. If there's something you'd like to use as a reliable source at the website you listed, please be far more specific about what it is and where it is located. Just saying "look here" isn't enough, no one is going to dig through a hundred links looking to verify your information. Redrocket (talk) 05:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I had almost decided to do just that but... (read below)--71.158.252.222 (talk) 06:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a question for IP 71.158.252.222, are you TERRY KEITH HAMMOND, the owner of the radio station and of the websites? (and please sign your posts with four ~'s), Cheers, Berg Drop a Line ޗ pls 05:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not. But, I do know of him and he speaks the truth. I've attended the hearings and seen the evidence. But, I know that, in your opinions, this will mean that he is "not verifiable".--71.158.252.222 (talk) 06:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2)That site does not meet the reliable source guidelines which you have been pointed too several times before. And, as has already been noted, nothing on the US DOJ website supports your claims at all. Multiple editors have checked. Nothing in any reliable news source supports your claims either. The only sites supporting this is a set of three sites which appear to be run by the same person with a heavy biased that completely fail our requirements for being a reliable source. We are not "elitist". We simply do not allow the disparagement of people, companies, or cities without reliable, verifiable sources to backup such claims. Both myself and Tjbergsma made attempts to find sources to back up your many claims. Neither of us could even find the sources you claimed exist, such as a New York Times article and content on the US DOJ site. Had such evidence of any problems in Shamrock existed, it would have been added to the article appropriately, but they do not. As such, the content will remain out. It is not a matter of our only wanting "our version." I have no ties to Shamrock at all. If such claims of corruption could be substantiated, they would be added as per our neutrality policy.
The harassment, BTW, refers to your threat of physical violence left on my talk page. We take threats very seriously here. Threats of violence and legal threats are wholly inappropriate and can result in permanent banning. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

True to form, most of the referenced stories do seem o have been snatched down but, if anyone would be so kind as to look about one-quarter of the way down the page at http://www.shamrocktx.us/roach.htm, you would find complete copies of many numerous substantiating articles from many numerous news agencies that are state, national and local in origin.

Mentioning the hiring of editors to keep our information straight is construed as a threat of physical violence? I, personally, find that to be an extremely amusing way of interpretation. (By this token, I suppose that all human resources departments at major corporations must be guilty of murder?) Geez! Where is the threat in the mention of hiring people to keep facts straight? Thank God, I didn't mention the fact that the town is looking to hire a new librarian. This has gone beyond ridiculous when the mention of "Hiring someone to help keep our facts straight" become a "physical threat".

I'll tell you what: You can take your "wikipedia" and turn it into an iealistic rose garden that is based upon your views of "reality" that doesn't really exist if you want. I will provide my information in a more reliable manner than here. This place seems to deal in fantasy and nothing is ever "verifiable" enough for the powers that be here.--71.158.252.222 (talk) 06:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You have ever opportunity to post your version of things here, as long as you can provide reliable sources to back them up. You are an anonymous IP editor, without secondary verification of what you're alleging, it's not encyclopedic. You may have seen or heard all sorts of things, but they are just speculation unless you provide proof.
Wikipedia isn't some "rose garden." No offense, but it's extremely doubtful that a cabal of wikipedia editors got together to restrict the flow of reliable information coming out of a tiny panhandle town. If it can be proved, it goes on the page. If not, it doesn't, same as on every single other article.
You can get angry and go somewhere else, or you can find the reliable sources you claim we're all ignoring and add them to the page. Good luck, either way. Redrocket (talk) 06:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
You said "I can see that we will need to hitr people to keep our listing accurate". Hitting is physical violence. Perhaps you mistyped but that is what it reads. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
My keys on my laptop are very close for my fat fingers. I'm sorry I mis-typed.The word was supposed to be "hire". For this, I do apologize.--71.158.252.222 (talk) 06:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.shamrocktx.us/roach.htm#references --71.158.252.222 (talk) 06:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

All of those "references" are personally hosted files. Do any of the original versions specifically mention Shamrock? None I checked mentioned any connection to Shamrock nor did they back up the specific claims made here. Additionally, none of the content that was attempted to be added here had anything to do with Roach at all but claims that some drug trade is causing the town population to drop drastically, and to make claims that the town is a center of a crime ring. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you not suppose that he had a source (Shamrock) for these drugs that he was selling through the county courthouses? That source was (and still is) Shamrock! (Look at a map of Pampa - where Roach's MAIN office is located - and Shamrock, then read the articles of how the "drugs were confiscated from travelers on interstate 40 and kept in the local courthouse" and see if you can find another branch office any closer to I-40 than Shamrock...

If that and the "personally hosted" files on our local MEDIA OWNED website are not "verification"enough, just forget the entire issue and we'll let Wikipedia stand as the "fantasy versio" of a Shamrock texas page ad roll our own that specializes in fact. Sorry. Local history is very much "encyclopedic" in any encyclopedia that deals in real facts.--71.158.252.222 (talk) 07:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

As per WP:VER, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Specifically, claims in Wikipedia articles need to be cited {WP:CITE) to "reliable, third-party, published sources" (WP:RS). --Kralizec! (talk) 07:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


If radio stations, newspapers and other media outlets are not "verifiable" then, I guess it's time to give up and admit defeat. The facts of our town are now lost forever!

How about this: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/15/national/15prosecutor.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Is New York Times qualifid as "verifiable"? The stories ARE true. They have just become obscured by time...--71.158.252.222 (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, that source is about Roach. There is not a single mention of Shamrock within the article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes... I know... He operated his "Texas Panhandle drug Distributorship" from a spaceship that never touched the planet. OK, kep the fantasy world flowing. Sorry. I've got other things to do that seem to be rooted in truth and life and not in some ideaistic idea that "it never happened because someone deleted the references". By THAT token, the entire Wikipedia section on history prior to the internet must come down due to a "lack of verifiable website references". I guess we just deleted history in general for the same reason. I give up. It's yours to "clean up" facts to yor heart's content. NOTHING is "verifiable" enough for you people. Can ou even verify that "Shamrock Texas" exists? Not by your standards. Therefore, I submit that the entire page must come down. I'm otta here before this gets construed as a "threat of physical violence".--71.158.252.222 (talk) 07:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The official policy on verifibility states that "if no reliable, third-party (in relation to the subject) sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." --Kralizec! (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


I realize that I am wasting my time because history has already been erased in this instance but, I would consider the New York Times, the US Department of Justice and the local radio station to be "extremely reliable, third-party (in relation to the subject) sources". I'm just wondering why these sources don't "cut it" here and cannot quite seem to convince myself that any of them are "substandard". But, as I've said, I give up. There's no hope of ever "verifying" anything here. Not with a set of standards that consider the NYT, DOJ and all forms of local media "unreliable". I'm sorry that I tried. Consider that I have learned my lesson.--216.167.143.152 (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

NY Times Article

I realize that I am wasting my time because history has already been erased in this instance but, I would consider the New York Times, the US Department of Justice and the local radio station to be "extremely reliable, third-party (in relation to the subject) sources". I'm just wondering why these sources don't "cut it" here and cannot quite seem to convince myself that any of them are "substandard". But, as I've said, I give up. There's no hope of ever "verifying" anything here. Not with a set of standards that consider the NYT, DOJ and all forms of local media "unreliable". I'm sorry that I tried. Consider that I have learned my lesson.

* the local radio station is privately owned and extremely biased. This one for certain cannot be used as a source
* the DOJ lists nothing that I can find on Shamrock
* NYT is very credible, and an acceptable source if relevant to the article. I think that we could find some way to link that source into the article (or maybe better in the Wheeler County, Texas article in a way that presents a neutral point of view, if Roach (whoever he is) has direct (sourced) political ties with Shamrock. However, it's not worth more than a passing sentence, like: "Wheeler counties claim to national fame is that in 2005 their drug-busting district attorney was himself arrested for drug possession." (ref source: NYT) After all, while this story is a little humorous, but drug users are arrested every day, and this one happened a little while ago.
* remember, wikipedia is not a place you can come to vent a personal dislike of someone because they don't like your broadcast, so every sentence needs to be carefully written not to reflect a personal bias. Cheers, Berg Drop a Line ޗ pls 16:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The NY Times article would make a great source for an article on Richard J. Roach himself, but since Shamrock is mentioned nowhere in the Times article, it is not an appropriate source for the Shamrock, Texas Wikipedia entry. The USDoJ would also make a fantastic source ... as long as you linked directly to a page on the USDoJ site that described Roach's criminal activity in, or impact on the city of Shamrock. If we found a USDoJ web page that mentioned the Roach investigation or prosecution, but did not have Shamrock in it, then just like the Times article, it would be an appropriate source for a Roach article, but not Shamrock. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Berg and Kralizec, I do want to thank you most sincerely for the considerate responses. These are the first true answers that I've gotten that didn't, in some way, belittle me. I do apologize for not being familiar with the "ways of the Wiki" but, I thought I would try. I now wish that I had not.

Now, if I could only convince these people that to offer to "hitr people" is NOT a physical threat and truly is a case of hitting the wrong two keys ("tr" instead of "re"), I would be happy and g away forever to never browse these much hallowed and worshiped pages again. Most sincerely, THANKS for yor sincere reply. It goes much further than simply slashing the materials while leaving no explaination and then attacking with (no apparent) reason when the edits are (in the eyes of an unskilled person) corrected.--216.167.143.152 (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see my reply on your talk page regarding the "hitr people" issue and having the block lifted early. Unfortunately communicating via text messages on the internet does not allow any of the nuanced communication you get with person-to-person or verbal communication over the phone. If two people are in a dispute and one types a message saying that "we will need to hitr people," we pretty much have to take it at face value, which looks like a very straightforward threat for physical violence. Sure typos will be made -and I have had some doozies myself- but that is why we have to be extra careful with what we say, especially in a heated content dispute. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


Thanks but, I honestly don't want to have any blocks lifted. I don't plan to be here for that to happen. I simply wanted it understood that physical violence was the farthest thing from my mind.--216.167.143.152 (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate sourcing

As an example of providing verifiability via reliable, third-party, published sources, lets consider the Grand Rapids, Ohio and Maumee River articles. If you wanted to add a section to these articles regarding the Maumee's recent flooding in Grand Rapids, the Flooded downtown or Grand Rapids braces for Maumee River flooding articles in the Bowling Green Sentinel-Tribune would be great sources because they explicitly describe flooding in Grand Rapids by the Maumee River. However the Toledo Blade article Blanchard River floods Findlay streets; other area rivers under flood warning would not be an appropriate source because while it mentions that the Maumee River is flooding, the article does not say that the river flooded in Grand Rapids.

Getting everything properly sourced and cited can be a complicated pain in the rear, but it is absolutely indispensable. If we did not have such strict rules on sources, this encyclopedia would quickly degenerate into a "he said, she said" rumour mill. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I can undrstand those points but, would not the mentioned newspapers (like the local radio station) be "privately owned" (even if held in the name of a private corporation) and, as a result, necessarily be considered to be "non-neutral"?--216.167.143.152 (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOURCES describes the types of sources that are generally considered most reliable. For the United States, most mainstream magazines and newspapers are excellent sources because their published content must be vetted for accuracy in order to avoid being sued for libel. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes! Exactly the same as must any content presented on local radio and television! However, the radio and TV outlets have the additional "honesty constraints" placed upon them b the FCC. This would tend to make them, if anything, even MORE reliable than "mainstream newspapers & magazines".

For instance, in the National Inquirer, one may learn that the ghost of Elvis was sighted in 17 various Wal-Marts on this past Thursday. You won't see (or hear) this on your local TV or radio outlet without first seeing or hearing a disclaimer that is designed to prevent the station's being punished - by the Federal Communications Commission - with some fairly draconian punishments. "Public Deception" is a very serious offense, in the eyes of the federal government.

Therefore, I put forth this question: If our own local radio station is so completely "non-neutal" and biased, how is it that they have so thoroughly avoided (in the least) a civil suit seeking to silence the news that has been reported? In fact, I put forth the arguement that the owner of the radio station, upon defending his rights to report on these events, indeed did prevail and have his own "incarceration" for reporting these facts determined to have been "unconstitutional" by the Texas courts. (As evidenced at http://www.shamrockedc.com/texas_court_of_criminal_appeals.htm as well as at http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/HTMLOpinionInfo.asp?OpinionID=15079 which is a direct link to the website of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals which SHOULD be deemed as "verifiable" by ANY set of standards that one would choose to apply.)

In short, the local radio station's stories have been tested by both state and federal governments and have withstood those tests completely. Therefore, how much more difficult can be the standards of Wikipedia that neither the Texas nor US government can meet up to those standards? THIS is why I still have a problem ith your "verification" that casts aside previously verified government information as if it were so much "fiction".--216.167.143.152 (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to submit documentation that the local Shamrock radio station is no longer a licensed station. The past owner is very disgruntled and is retaliating against the people who had him prosecuted. This is obvious when you lookat his web sites. Check out the following sites for documented facts: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6513497459 http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6513619197 http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6513514796 http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/getimportletter_exh.cgi?import_letter_id=7785 http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/getimportletter_exh.cgi?import_letter_id=1822 http://amarillo.com/stories/052984/new_hammond.shtml http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=tx&vol=app/15979&invol=1

You will notice the WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS: The order imposing community supervision in Cause No. 4010-A in the 31st Judicial District Court of Wheeler County is vacated, and the cause remanded for re-sentencing. Mr. Hammond recieved 2 years probation at the re-sentencing. So I guess the state and federal governments have withstood those tests completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.74.184 (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's try this again in this fantasy place that wants you to "say something without saying anything" and to "prove it without presenting any evidence":

All of David Rushing's post (above) would make some kind of sense if only I were the radio station owner - which I'm not.

Try it this way then, since you would prefer to see homoginized facts and form your own opinions: Take a look at the CERTIFIED COURT DOCUMENTS at http://www.shamrockedc.com/you_decide.htm and then form your own opinion.

If, after reading the documents cited there, you still have any doubts, you need more help than I can offer in interpretation of facts. Of course, the next thing you will be reading here is a post from David Rushing insisting that the court records presented there are falsified. I would suggest that you follow up by contacting the court reporter whose contact information and certification is at the bottom of each page for verification purposes.

If you consider this to be a "personal attack" then, I don't know what I can do for you because that is NOT what is intended. Where I'm from "facts are facts" and a person cannot ignore facts simply because "this viewpoint disagrees with the way I want things to be". I'm sorry. The facts are the facts.216.167.133.159 (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shamrock,_Texas/Archive_1&oldid=1140124611"