[gohrt]

If we don't mock the hoaxers, we run the risk of genuine stories getting politely ignored along with the hoaxes.

Remember the story of the Child Who Cried Wolf.

[mladenkovacevic]

It wasn't a hoax. She genuinely believed the visit resulted from her search.

Why must we either mock or promote it. Just look into it, settle what the truth is, and move on.

[mpyne]

What if the child who cried wolf genuinely believed he'd seen wolves?

It's the same result in the end (no one believes you when it's most important), which is why it's necessary not to jump to conclusions that are not supported by evidence, especially conclusions that naturally mesh with your worldview.

[mladenkovacevic]

"Jumping to conclusions" is a funny phrase to use. It seems to imply that there were actual conclusions being drawn out of the initial suspicions, instead of a "Hey let's look into this thing".

Now what if the child had cried wolf for the very first time and some of the villagers were all like "Shuttup you stupid kid, who do you think you are that the wolf would wanna eat you anyways! OOH LOOK THE WOLF IS GONNA EAT MEEEHHH! Stupid idiot."

Then once it was determined that there was no wolf, those same villagers proceeded to deride and mock the few people who actually tried to shine a light into the forest to see if there was a wolf in the first place: "I can't believe you fell for that you stupid idiots. Told ya there was no wolf!"

In conclusion, let's not allow our relationships and decisions rely TOO much on children's tales.

[danielweber]

Years back an online friend coined Japhy's Law: the facts you most want to be true are those you should be most suspicious of.