South African parents stand accused of murdering their baby.

[Dave A]

Had the victims been vaccinated against polio?
Pretty safely assuming not, if you couldn't get to them with a needle and syringe to give a vaccination shot despite repeated efforts, what are your chances of getting them onto a sewerage system?

Probably more remote than getting them onto a fixed line telephone (which admittedly is an abstract thought to file away for now).

Dave, If this is the question you refer to, then I apologise for not replying sooner. truth is it is not easy to verify this fact without using unreliable sources that cannot be cross referenced. I've read that the one side blames vaccines for the epidemics and the other side blames the un-vaccinated.

It's nowhere near as simple as that. Given the geopolitics on this one, an "anti-polio-vaccine drive" could be seen by cynics as an Al Qaeda plot to infect Europe (and beyond) via unvaccinated refugees from an area that has had a known outbreak of polio.

And I can't see Europe relying on the quality of their sewerage system to protect them from the risk without some rather rigorous testing of the theory in advance either (which is blown the moment someone takes a dump near a water source that someone might swim in anyway - which happens all the time during the Duzi Canoe Marathon apparently).

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/11/...wer-tells.html
The American people are still being told that quantitative easing is "economic stimulus" which will make the lives of average Americans better.

That is a flat out lie and the folks over at the Federal Reserve know this.

Actually that would be a pretty good opening post for a new thread on the subject - Is quantitative easing working? Or something along that line.
Pretty on-theme for TFSA too, I think.

[Citizen X]

The American people are still being told that quantitative easing is "economic stimulus" which will make the lives of average Americans better.

That is a flat out lie and the folks over at the Federal Reserve know this.

Hi Trickzta,

You’ve now made a good submission; try to focus on this hypothesis without being evasive. The idea is that after debate your final conclusion must be able to be reconciled with your premise.
1. When you want to respond to a specific TFSA member’s comments, might I suggest that you use the ‘reply with quote,’ ribbon[bottom right of every post]. This will make it much easier to follow the debate;
2. You clearly invest time in your posts; focus on the quality instead of the quantity, try and summarize your source; and by doping so you’ll be incisive
3. If there’s one thing I’ve learnt from you, then it’s got to be how to be evasive. In certain fields this is a good quality. The ‘spin doctors,’ of our country are masters in this;
4. Upon joining TFSA I too started with lengthy posts that were difficult to follow, I too was unaware of the ’reply with quote,’ ribbon. I too had to learn how to deal with criticism [we all can learn from each other and this has the potential of making us better people in the bigger stage of life]. I’m still learning from fellow TFSA members, this won’t change;
5. When a TFSA member place any of your issues in dispute, the ‘reply with quote ribbon will prove to be invaluable to you in responding;
6. Let us also know more about yourself if not for any other reason than simply so that TFSA members can get to know you over the passage of time;
7. Try not to get hung up on excruciating detail and thereby stifle protracted debate
Try the ‘reply with quote,’ facility with any post in this thread just to get things going in the right direction
Just my 2 cents

[Justloadit]

Overwhelming dumping your opposition with data is one sure way of thinking that you will win the debate, as the opposition will not spend time sifting through the data.

Just remember this is a public forum, and quite honestly I have about 20 minutes a day to see what is interesting on the forum, so any post that has more than 10 lines will be skipped. There is more interesting threads to go through.

So if you want to attract attention, and engage in meaningful debate, I suggest you form your opinion of any article you may have found, and in your opinion you reference the article that you have formed your opinion on, using meaningful facts from the article referred. If there is a forum member, who may wish to engage in the debate, they can then invest their time in reading the article and replying in the same manner, with any references that they find else where.

Be prepared to accept that not many are going to read anything that you may post and refer to, it's the nature of an open subject public forum. Not every one has the same interest as you, or the amount of spare time to engage.

SO the fact that there may be no reply to any of your posts does not lead to the validity of the fact in the post.

[mvubu]

Throwing mud and seeing what sticks is not a valid method of debate and research.
Outrageous claims require outrageous evidence to back it up and I am not seeing much, just quack-pot websites and reams of blurb with little content.