>Poor analogy, but I am sure everyone gets the idea.  Someone had heard
>snippets about a ferret tragedy in Washington somewhere and was asking
>for clarification.  If he had the correct information, he wouldn't have
>asked!  The key here is 'asked' He 'asked' for accurate information, he
>wasn't offering information as 'fact'.
 
Well, yes, as a matter of fact ... he/she DID offer information as "fact".
In the snippet which I quoted in my post, the original poster STATED that
the event occurred in Seattle, and that it was Jean's ex-boyfriend had
committed it.  Both of these "facts" are WRONG, and subject to
misinterpretation.
 
Something very similar happened last week, when someone "stated" that they
understood that Jean was behind in her rent before the tragedy, and this
person didn't understand why we should support someone who can't even pay
her rent.  Then someone ELSE said something else based on that ... and it
escalated.
 
I'm hoping that we can prevent misinformation from spreading like that
again.  What I was trying (and am still trying) to say is that I think a
simple "hey, could somebody send me more info.  on that rude guy who posts"
would be sufficent (if someone was looking for information).  You'd probably
be offended (and rightly so) if someone said, "Hey, I haven't heard the full
story on that rude guy who posts.  I understand that he steals money from
little old ladies and has been kicked off the list already twice, but that's
all I know.  Could somebody please tell me more?"
 
In other words, it's not necessary to post SPECULATIVE information or
"rumors" when asking for information ... just ask for the information and
leave it at that, please.
 
- Ela
    ___     ___
   (000)___(000)        Ela Heyn
   /   @    @  \        [log in to unmask]
   |           |
   ======@======    http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/5483
[Posted in FML issue 2158]