Thanks, I've been waiting all day for your permission to do this.Anyone claiming that they responded to the specific events that I posted and what may have caused those events to occur,can do so,by reposting
(was that more sarcasm?)
Here's what I posted the first time (and that I linked to above). I'm sure you'll just ignore it like the first two times. But what the heck.
I'm sure you'll just say I'm too stupid to understand what really happened though...I fail to see anything illogical here. Improbable? Maybe, but so are winning $100 scratch lottery tickets and that happens all the time. Given the probabilities of the two, I'd bet on your scenario happening at a higher rate than winning $100 on a scratch ticket anyday.
You say that she read the lost pets section for reasons unknown. No, she read the lost pets section because her friend recently found a dog. Even if she didn't intend to. That's kind of how your subconscious works. You do stuff all the time that you're not consciously thinking about.
The timing of the call? Sure it's coincidence. As Yiago pointed out, most people read the paper in the morning, she called "around" 9am. That doesn't strike me as odd in the slightest.
You say your ad didn't match her description of the dog. So, either your ad was horribly written (not likely if you actually wanted the dog back), or her memory was horrible. I think it's very likely that the description matched enough that it triggered the call...again, it could have been enough for her subconscious to make the connection for her. The subconscious works that way, and lucky for us it does. It pulls our butts out of the "fire" all the time.
You make bold assertions like "science can't explain this" or "this is completely illogical". Yet, it can be simply explained. It's not even that coincidental.