falpere Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 What reason do you have to believe anything other than that it was a fox? What reason do you have to believe it could only be a fox? Other than you only believe what is written by the media. Lessons to be learned by you my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kazads53 Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 The media and parents with injured children never lie ...do they?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 What reason do you have to believe it could only be a fox? Other than you only believe what is written by the media. Lessons to be learned by you my friend. There is a balance of probabilities at work here falpere. If you read the media, rather than consumed it, you'd have a better honed sense of provenance when it comes to reading reports. If you weren't there, you don't know; so now you have to choose who to rely on and balance the probabilities yourself. That is lesson to be learned by you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falpere Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 There is a balance of probabilities at work here falpere. If you read the media, rather than consumed it, you'd have a better honed sense of provenance when it comes to reading reports. If you weren't there, you don't know; so now you have to choose who to rely on and balance the probabilities yourself. That is lesson to be learned by you. How do you know? Did you read it in the media or decide this for yourself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 Do you understand the difference between reading the media and reading it in the media? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falpere Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 Do you understand the difference between reading the media and reading it in the media? Of course. You do not though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieboy Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 Not sure I'm keen on being called a '<personal insult removed>' for having an opinion based on 30 years of first hand experience caring for and rehabilitating wildlife; unless of course you have similar qualification Halibut. Why are members having a go at each other over this? It's not getting anybody anywhere, everyone is entitled to there own opinion but none of those opinions will change that of the powers in control. I'm sorry but I feel it's a great pity that the effort that has been put into typing 269 replies on 14 pages of this thread was not put into writing to those powers as I did. Perhaps if more people had spoken out, rather than in-fighting, someone might have listened to the concerns. I joined this forum specifically on the strength of this particular story and thread. It appeared that members took an interest in justice or at least the search for the truth. I did my bit by questioning the authorities and publishing their responce. For my efforts I have been accused of being a liar. So, because of attitudes on the same thread that brought me here; I'm off. Carry on my freinds....... good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 Hiya all When the news broke of this fox attack story I was instantly reminded of the Australian 'dingo attack' story from a few years ago. Again, which one? Azaria Chamberlain? Why did you mention this in your email to the police? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 people, lets have less of the name calling and bickering, have a debate by all means but don't make it personal, this is a family friendly forum I've edited out the offending phrases for now next time, I'll just delete the posts and all your finely crafted words and arguments will be lost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 The reason I ask is because the Dingo attack I think that davieboy is referring to is one where the mother was convicted of killing her daughter after claiming it was taken by dingos. She was later released on compassionate grounds, and later still, completely exonerated of the crime when the baby's jacket was found near a dingos lair. Writing to the police, questioning whether it was a fox (in spite of no evidence to the contrary) and then bringing up an actual dingo attack where a baby was killed and eaten won't have reassured the police they were dealing with a serious inquiry. If he got the brush-off, I suspect that might have something to do with it. If anyone has any actual material evidence that it wasn't a fox, or any evidence that foxes categorically never attack humans, I'd like to see it. Until then, any notion that it wasn't a fox says more about the poster's desire for wish fulfillment than their grasp of the facts . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.