andy_k said:
And you accused me of making ludicrous analogies
Yes, because you
did. None of what I asked you was remotely ludicrous - all were entirely possible scenarios, many of which have been reported in the news in recent years. Indeed, they weren't even analogies.....they were illustrations of children in danger which I believed only a fool would ignore...
of course I would report them to the police but I wouldn't post it on an internet forum first.
At best that's a pointless statement, but it does nothing to explain why people shouldn't discuss or debate matters such as this on a forum. And how do you know the matter wasn't reported? You don't...
Yes, the thread is based on hearsay and yes I did see the pictures as I'm sure you did, now tell me
1, from those photographs can you beyond any reasonable doubt say that those vehicles are moving?
No, but then nothing any individual ever sets out to discuss.....EVER......on a forum is 100% verifiable, so we have to assume that people are generally honest and that the discussions we have with them are based on something resembling the truth. If you engage in discussions on forums and have the mindset you're suggesting you have, then apart from looking like a pillock, you're going to struggle to endear yourself and in fact you may as well switch off and watch telly instead.
Think about it, how many forum posts DON'T contain information or statements which are not verifiable..?
All that said, I reckon those cars
were moving down a road. Either that, or both parties in the two cars elected to stop dead, remain in the vehicle and look ahead, while Pammy in the car behind decided to remain behind them and invent a story. If you're even considering the silly scenario, then I'm more than slightly amused.
No you can't because there is no reference, no calibrated speed overlay, not a single indication that they are moving. You have a third parties word for it - hearsay.
Ok Andy. And Pammy's motive for all this would be..............?
2, Beyond any shadow of a doubt can you say those photographs are genuine?
No you can't because they are digital photographs which have been manipulated at least once (ie scaled) before they were uploaded here. I make my living creating digital images of stuff that doesn't exist - I'm sure you'll trust me when I say something like that those images are easy to fake - hearsay.
Gosh, well I'm a commercial photographer with a 6000 sq ft studio and several specialist staff. I make my living solely from digital photography and post-processing images has been a part of my life for more than ten years..........however that's not relevant, because although the image actually looks genuine to me, I'd need more of a reason to question Pammy's motives for inventing / exaggerating the story than I do to simply believe what was claimed happened,
actually happened. In any case, can you prove that it wasn't true or that the images have been visually manipulated...?
3, were you there to witness the event?
No you are relying on a third parties information - hearsay.
Sorry Andy, but I need to get something straight. Are you saying that you personally work on the assumption that people are lying to you, unless there is conclusive proof to the contrary? If so, I'll bet you're a fun guy to be around...............Did you know that when you phone the police to report an incident or crime, that even
they are happy to act on that information because most people are actually telling the truth..? And yet you require proof before you'll attach credibility to someone's perfectly credible claims on an internet forum................now that's just odd
Now on a slightly different note, we have "confessions" from several forum members (you included) that they occasionally break laws such as speed limits. There's no grey areas here, it's black and white and whilst you may not like the law but that doesn't mean it doesn't apply to you and the moment you admit to breaking any law you sacrifice any moral high ground and in my opinion that takes away your right to lecture other people on the rights and wrongs of what they may or may not have been doing.
Wow, the mind boggles.................not only was that monumentally embarrassing to read Andy, but it's also the biggest pile of unmitigated crap I've ever cast my eyes over. Plenty of people (probably ALL people...) break the law at some point, but that isn't the issue here, and it never has been. The fact that I break the speed limit occasionally
does not prevent me from witnessing a scenario in which a child is severely neglected or actively endangered in the presence of it's parents. The fact that I occasionally break the speed limit
does not prevent me making a decision to report those people for that very crime. The fact that I break the speed limit occasionally
has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on how I choose to discuss or offer my views on such an ocurrance..............The only thing that would make me a hypocrite would be if I myself was guilty of endangering my children to the extent that someone had to report
me. But I'm
not, so they
don't....
In fact to avoid hypocrisy, the only thing I could not afford to do would be to criticise other people for occasionally breaking the speed limit. But then that's hardly the same thing as the
utterly mindless statement you just made, is it..?
That's me finished on this one
I wasn't aware you'd actually
started 
