i think you are deliberatly misunderstanding my posts but for the benefit of the less astute members of the forum who will no doubt further enrage themselves thanks to your posts i'll try and better explain what i have said.
i can imagine three possible responses to the events stated in the thread. the first might be to fully accept the truth of what is being suggested, namely that someone known to the op, or at least who themself knows of the op, is posing as the thief for some unknown reason, or perhaps that the thief themself is involved in a strange post-theft stalking exercise. the second response might be to think that the facts as given seem so odd that another explanation might be more likely, whatever this might be. the third reponse might be to claim that the op is deliberatly being untruthful.
i would place myself in the second catagory. i am neither 100% credulous, nor 100% accusatory. Since my scepticism allows for the possibility of another explanation, i would first look to the op (who else is there to look towards?) for this.
So, because you find the story a little incredible you are open to the possiblity that the op is being a bit crook.
In my experience truth is usually much stranger than fiction.
And as I don't know the OP I will do the decent thing and take his story at face value rather then hint at dishonesty with absolutly no evidence.
So, because you find the story a little incredible you are open to the possiblity that the op is being a bit crook.
In my experience truth is usually much stranger than fiction.
And as I don't know the OP I will do the decent thing and take his story at face value rather then hint at dishonesty with absolutly no evidence.