Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
No, it makes no difference. These are the very essence of a conjecture, which may be described:
You acknowledge that what you say is unproven and you acknowledge that you believe it to be true.
QED.
|
Chris, perhaps I should explain a few things. Firstly, there is nothing wrong with opinons and conjecture. That's what we're here to discuss.
I was criticising basing final conclusions on anectodal evidence and conjecture. As some CF members appeared to be doing. There is a big difference, when I state conjecture (as I do all the time) I do take care to state "in my view" or the equivalent.
As for the meadows case, I have not even looked into it, this was why I was asking Derek for a link, I was just feeling a bit lazy this morning - still haven't had a chance to search for it.
But, from the limited information I do have, I do find it rather suspect that her testimony (assuming it to false) wasn't put to bed that same evening, as the media maintained a heavy presence there at that time.
---------- Post added at 11:12 ---------- Previous post was at 10:56 ----------
Okay, had a wee peak on the internet to find some more references to this story.
Here is the original account:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/de...ester-hospital
Another version:
http://studentbroadleft.org.uk/2010/...alfie-meadows/
Quote:
|
Only after the intervention of an ambulance worker did Alfie receive urgent medical treatment for the stroke he suffered after receiving his injury. The ambulance worker said, “If he hadn’t, Alfie would have been transferred and he could have died.”
|
What I can discern from this is that if the Susan Meadows' account is the work of an overactive imagination, then surely the police are going to charge her for slander.
Right?
But yet so far I've heard nothing of the sorts. This just doesn't add up to me. If the police choose not to press charges then I think there is probably a good reason. Any suggestions?