This clearly has nothing to do with the website owners as you so snidely comment other than the fact that they set the rules of the forum....quote Forum rules..
You may discuss any publicly available information from reputable sources. These include but aren't limited to: Press releases put out by HRNSW (or other state organisations), news posted by HR Australia, or Harnesslink etc. If you are posting something that could be considered controversial you need to include the link to the source in your post.
I have been through the posts by the persons you mention in regard to their contributions
let's start with Barney..
post 1..Claimed six cases of Positive swab. No source mentioned.
post 17 Claimed to have put irrefutable evidence ON ANOTHER SITE. No source mentioned.
Post 23 Claimed to have read 2 reports of 6 positives.
post 25 Claimed a reported sample of 3500 against a threshold of 200 No source mentioned.
Each of these claims rejected in a press release from HRNSW (no positives) posted later by Trish.
Now Trish.. Most of her posts are links to articles and where relevant to the issue of Cobalt Chloride testing of horses in Australia; no issue.
post 18 List of detected samples No Cobalt listed. No comment link only.
post 22 Press release from HRNSW as above.
post 32 Press article from USA about rumours and US intent to test.
post 40 Article from US. No source nor link to the article original.
Danno
post 39 Article written by person with BA Eng / Philosophy. (Sciences????)
post 41 Reprint a previously posted Press story again at odds with HRNSW.
His other posts are responses to comments by others.
If all or any of these posts provides any backup evidence let alone scientific then please point to it because I am not the only one here missing it.
IMO it's just plain mischief to claim a link between Harvey's post and what has been posted on the Cobalt chloride thread in respect to Backup evidence and how moderation has handled these.
Reply With Quote