>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]