Actually, keturah, since you don’t have any links, I did my own looking. From everything I saw, the rate of responders who were skeptical was not even 10%, as opposed to probably 70 or 80% skepticism on the Dope. Of course there were many people who were skeptical, however the proportion of responses to that effect on the Dope was vastly different. This link is exemplary of what I saw:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rachelzarrell/a-family-says-their-little-girl-was-asked-to-leave-kfc-becau
I’m still skeptical:
First we have a story about how the evil corporation treated a cute wittle girl, who’s been through so much. Doesn’t it just make you want to send death threats to the restaurant, and donate money to the family?
Now it’s a negligent family that made up a story from whole cloth to manipulate and defraud good-willed people. (As well as the use of a cute wittle girl, who’s been through so much). Doesn’t it just make you want to send abusive letters to the family and donate money to this double-suffering child (e.g. if there’s some fund that goes to her medical expenses and can’t be used by the family)?
I’m still withholding rage until someone owns up to something and things become a little more clear.
Wait? What?? Are you actually trying to say that your one link, which says nothing BTW, somehow makes the percentages you posted valid? And that makes the sdmb and you somehow in the smart crowd? OK Mr. Nylock, you are super smart!!
And as long as we are giving cites, well, this one doesn’t speak so well for you.http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17472952&postcount=232
Nope, not what I’m saying, I’m saying that it was typical of the many I read. You were the one saying that my speculation was nonsense, just for shits and giggles I looked at a bunch of articles and the comments, and what I saw pretty much matched what is presented in my cite. What my cite shows is numerous postings with numbers of likes. What I saw in the cite is several postings with hundreds of likes which did not even call into question the truth of the story, and a much smaller number of posts with far fewer likes that did.
I am not understanding a) how my cite does not support my position or b) why you do not at least post one cite that supports your position. I like having interesting discussions, however if you feel the need to make assumptions or extrapolations or make sarcastic remarks about what you think I think about how smart I am, please just don’t respond to my posts.
It does not surprise me that you missed my point entirely. Sleep well.
I do not understand what point you are trying to make here. First you say imply that I am an arrogant person about being smart, but in this cite I freely admit that I am not always intelligent. So what point are you trying to prove? Furthermore, how is this relevant to the topic and not in violation of the rules of this forum?
I missed it too. Perhaps you are too smart for us folks.
Keturah, chill. It’s possible to disagree with what someone says or find it lacking without getting into personal attacks on that person.
Dial it way back.
Mr. Nylock, as you yourself observe, this tangent is off-topic in this thread. Please drop it.
No warning issued.
twickster, MPSIMS moderator
So what prompted the grandmother to make this claim? She couldn’t have known it would go viral, and strangers would make donations. Was she scheming to sue KFC in order to pay the child’s medical bills, or is she just a pathological liar? I’ve known a couple of people in my life who used to fabricate stories where they were the center of some kind of attention, although not generally where they were victims. The stories were usually totally transparent, but I figured they didn’t realize it, because most people had given up trying to challenge them, and just let it go in one ear and out the other when they went on about something.
Anybody feel like speculating?
I assume granny hoped to scam either KFC or sympathetic strangers out of some cash. And if so, it allegedly worked.
In short, grifters and not necessarily pathological liars.
Yes, but surely it’s justified, because injured little girl.
Here’s where I’m torn, because, like you said “injured little girl.”
IMHO, the grandmother played the system for all it is worth. In the end, KFC gets “backed into a corner,” because if they retract their offer of the donation, they end up getting bad publicity (and I can’t imagine that all the people who pledged their money will be requesting it returned).
Yeah, she’s going to face some scorn / ridicule for a short basis, but AFAIK, no criminal actions have been taken, outside of possible defamation, but if KFC ends up pursuing that, they just risk more bad publicity, as the damages would be associated with them trying to “win back” their donation. Eventually, people will forget about her con job and life will go back to normal.
Meanwhile, from various accounts, the employees of the KFC location(s) have faced death threats, harassing phone calls, had drinks thrown in their faces… What’s their reparation?
You think that because she’s old, she doesn’t know that attention whoring on the internet is profitable business? Every day you turn on the news and there’s a story about someone getting famous or rich over some internet stunt.
But it was obviously not a well-thought out scheme, so I’m guessing it’s a pathologiar liar thing. Though, pathological liars usually have a sordid history. I would think her family woud have been skeptical of the story too and wouldn’t have let this thing take off the way it did. But I guess maybe it snowballed before they could control it.
Well from the snipes site:
They were trained. Trained for fighting.
I don’t think it was planned, certainly not as a money-making scheme. Just a little attention-seeking. It would be devastating to see a grandchild go through that.
That being said, my self-confidence took a hit. I thought I was the most cynical guy on the block.
They had a “go fund me” site. They took it down when the shit hit the fan. They were prepared for the money-making aspect of this.
I thought that happened later. Ignorance fought, defeated.