false car insurance claim made against me

DUTR

lumixldn wrote: »

In your comments, it sounds like every things a possibility to consider no matter how small the probability is.

When investigating, all probabilities must be considered and not ignored.
However now that you say it is resolved, why are you worrying about it?

lumixldn

DUTR wrote: »

When investigating, all probabilities must be considered and not ignored.
However now that you say it is resolved, why are you worrying about it?

I think the obviously low probability things should be ignored unless some strong evidence suggest otherwise, unless you are doing physics to understand how the universe works.
I am not worried any more, now it is my time to learn how grasping at straws in the forum like some other readers.

DUTR

lumixldn wrote: »

I am not worried any more, now it is my time to learn how grasping at straws in the forum like some other readers.

How is anyone grasping at straws?
What you probably haven't matured enough to realise, is you cannot dictate how someone else must think
There are still holes in your summary, but as you say the case is closed

lumixldn

DUTR wrote: »

How is anyone grasping at straws?
What you probably haven't matured enough to realise, is you cannot dictate how someone else must think
There are still holes in your summary, but as you say the case is closed

I never try to dictate how other else thinks, some people will always see holes in any post anyway. The discussion is good to see on how reader could possible conceive holes and the reason behind it.

DUTR

lumixldn wrote: »

I never try to dictate how other else thinks, some people will always see holes in any post anyway. The discussion is good to see on how reader could possible conceive holes and the reason behind it.

See post #2

lumixldn

DUTR wrote: »

See post #2

DUTR are free to refer to all posts made in the threads again and again.

DUTR

lumixldn wrote: »

DUTR are free to refer to all posts made in the threads again and again.

Well it's a one liner and it summarised the whole thread immediately

lumixldn

DUTR wrote: »

Well it's a one liner and it summarised the whole thread immediately

I don't think it summarise the whole thread well, #3 talking about the intend of the discussion from OP. With some advice from some reader, the OP understand his proposition and make more attempts to chase the insurers to get the matter close. Also share this with the readers with comments.

Yet in the thread majority of the posts is from one reader keep trying to conceive "possible" holes from OP.

DUTR

lumixldn wrote: »

I don't think it summarise the whole thread well, #3 talking about the intend of the discussion from OP. With some advice from some reader, the OP understand his proposition and make more attempts to chase the insurers to get the matter close. Also share this with the readers with comments.

Yet in the thread majority of the posts is from one reader keep trying to conceive "possible" holes from OP.

Well of course you wouldn't think that
Why worry about something that has not yet occurred? Was the line and it still rings true, there was no hole or accusation in post #2, the rest....well, it is there for all to see, however you say it is resolved in your favour now.