[rhcom2]

Suh changed the deal and got confirmation that Barker accepted the changes. Suh asked, Barker said yes for an extra $50 and then Barker exploded on her when she got here. Barker is in no way the victim here. Sure maybe Suh was a high maintenance renter, but she didn't do anything wrong.

This is the third time I'm posting this excerpt:

"When Suh later asked if it was OK to bring two friends and two dogs along, Barker said it was fine but the group would need to pay an additional $50 a night, according to screenshots of their text messages." https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/13/airbnb-ca...

[masonic]

  according to screenshots of their text messages

Which the Guardian does not show at all, and no source that I can find has published a complete, unedited account of the text exchange.

[rhcom2]

Here: https://www.everipedia.com/tami-barker-airbnb-host/

I don't see a spoiled brat. Why is it so hard to believe that Suh wasn't in the wrong?