@tsotha made two unrelated points initially:

- given the method used, it might have been farmers rather than poachers, and I agree with him, I though of it as well.

- elephants are stupid, which I disagree with.

This subthread was dedicated to the first one until you brought up the second.

Eh? I never said elephants are stupid. The elephants in question had never been to the refuge before - my problem was the writer assumes because they mated with elephants who had they knew where to go. I find that a really difficult claim to accept.

Look, I like a feel-good story as much as the next guy, but this one is a bit much.

Actually, that's not what I wanted to write, I exagerated your point.

You don't think they're smart enough to communicate that kind of information and act on it.

I know little about elephants, but from what I know of them, it sounds possible that it actually occured.

>More generally, the underlying message here of course is not whether or not this particular story is true...

This is a news story. There's not supposed to be a "message" at all.

But your original post went to some length trying to show that this "news story" was a fake. If you were right, then the author of the story was expressing a bias, an opinion, an attempt to influence, a "message". Gees - you're all over the place on logic.

>But your original post went to some length trying to show that this "news story" was a fake.

Not so much fake as embellished.

>Gees - you're all over the place on logic.

I laughed when I read that.