Sandi wrote:
>Now ... Sukie has frequently attempted to infer that I'm a liar and I'm
>sure she'll make some derogatory comments again.
 
Bill added:
> [Is that a rumor?  BIG]
 
Seems like one to me.  Of course, different people take statements
different ways.
 
As I recall the thing which upset some people and led to Sandi at one
point saying that I was calling her a liar was when I mentioned quite
some time ago now that when there are arguments between two groups
of people I tend to check the archives for past posts of both, and
especially look for the past in terms of allegations made, and especially
if a "me against the world" type of statement is made by anyone.  It
just helps me weigh things.  That's a far cry from saying someone is
a liar; it is using the ready resources of people's own words for
putting the actions of those on each side who are making allegations
into a behavioral context if it is repeated action.  When it is an action
that is often repeated I tend to weigh the posts from that person less
heavily -- just like the story of "crying wolf".  That's all.  Nor did I
even say what I had found for those of each side of that argument back
then; if people want to know such results when fights arise then they can
look for themselves.  I do recall some general upset when I mentioned
doing that, though.  Past experience is that when such a technique is
mentioned it is common for at least one person on each side to get upset,
but it is a useful exercise, I find.  Often enough in a bad fight there
are those in it who mean well but don't often fight, and others who mean
well but fight very often.
 
What I knew about the food thing was that a third party posted on the FML
and she was worried.  I knew about the one large bad batch problem, but
not about what sounds like it may have been a regional problem -- perhaps
a storage thing for that area?  What I said was that she should not
automatically let rumors worry her but should check into them.
 
Nor did I know what the origin of her concern was, and I didn't care.
Only that party could say and she is using the mature and considerate
measure of not saying, which makes sense because it is a kindness which
spares the FML members and others from fights which arise too often.  I
applaud her choice.
 
Of the rumors of which I've known in the ferret internet it is accurate
to say that the number IS substantially fewer than one of every ten being
correct in recent years.  In the earlier years with fewer people on the
internet there seemed to have been a much higher accuracy rate, but I've
learned to verify, verify, verify extra carefully in more recent years.
 
And that it just that.
 
It seems to be a silly thing to waste list space on since we are in
agreement on the basic that anyone running into an internet rumor needs
to verify, verify, verify, but maybe it is just as well because folks
will see that two people who don't get along do agree on the importance
of checking things out before worrying.
[Posted in FML issue 4437]