No, the reason for the different reaction to the two posters is the way they responded to the evidence showing that their inferences and accusations were unjustified.
See if you can spot the difference between these two posts:
and
One is a genuine apology; the other is a weasel.
Ok, since it looks like this mess is just about cleaned up, I had to chime in how funny I thought it was that the kid who made the poopy mess is referred to as “Kid #2”.
That is all. 
Long post ahead:
Thank you for taking the time to provide more details. For me, they create more confusion, not less. But since you were kind enough to take the time to explain, I thought I’d take some time to explain why I said what I did. Perhaps you’ll appreciate my thoughts since you’ve posted that you’re a paralegal and would therefore probably realize that certain facts strung together next to certain other facts give very different connotations than if they were written differently.
There are some people on this message board who write anecdotes and stories of their experiences in a somewhat sensationalized, embellished and often dramatic way. Their stories read more like creative fiction than accounts of ordinary people’s lives. Relating that to your post, while not as dramatic as some (it was a pretty short piece) I felt that the post was written in a way to elicit a certain response while the later explanations gave a somewhat different picture. I’ll try to illustrate. Here is your original post.
and now I’ll attempt to write your post with the added details you’ve revealed subsequently. The new information will be bracketed and highlighted.
There was that time that AngryKid #2, at the age of 2, was playing in the McDonald’s indoor slide thingie and took off his poopy diaper way up in the nether region of the thing. AngryKid #1 and Cousin #1, between fits of laughter, were nice enough to announce it to everyone in the restaurant [while I was cleaning up the mess and working with the manager] #2 is now 8, and I still refuse to go to that particular McDonald’s [in deference to my son’s wishes due to his embarrassment]. I hope the poor employee who had to crawl up there and retrieve it, let alone clean the entire thing (#2 was bringing it down to throw away, so it traveled a bit of distance) got hazardous duty pay [for sanitizing the slide even though I had cleaned it all except for a bit that the manager had told me that they would take care of.]
So for me, this new story is quite a bit different than the first. In the first story, it seemed that it was your embarrassment, not your son’s embarrassment that led to you avoiding that particular McDonald’s. Also, I interpreted your first story as saying that the employee should get hazardous duty pay for doing something out of the ordinary, not just sanitizing the equipment which is what they would probably normally do anyway.
And in putting both the stories together, I’m still left with some hanging questions. If it wasn’t your embarrassment but your son’s embarrassment that prompted you not to visit the McDonald’s, why did your son, who didn’t have enough embarrassment not to take off his diaper in front of everyone in the restaurant suddenly become so shy at two years old that he didn’t want to visit again for fear of humiliation, say a couple weeks later? Do you normally make decisions about where to get lunch based on a two-year-old’s input? I also found it a little puzzling that the fact that your son was embarrassed about this experience was added to the middle of your story about your children embarrassing you.
Why did you feel sorry for the McDonald’s employee when he was just sanitizing something that you’d already cleaned? Wouldn’t you want the employees to be sanitizing their equipment for the safety of your children as well as others’?
Those are the questions that had me commenting that I didn’t see how the two stories fit together. Unlike WhyNot however, I don’t think that you made up the new details. I think the revised version really is the true story. Most stories are really more mundane than some people make them out to be. Unlike WhyNot as well, I’m not so concerned about whether you “did the right thing” in the restaurant. And that was the reason that I said that that was not “my issue.” My main concern in this thread was about whether the two stories were congruent. I think they are congruent, but I also think that reasonable people wouldn’t have to leap to any conclusions to come up with the extrapolations they did here. It was written in a way that lent itself to that.
Here’s another example of your writing that could lead to people coming up with different conclusions.
[
bold added
For instance in this post, if someone had said. . . wow, did your brother pass out or was he in danger of blood loss? I wouldn’t think that conclusion to be unwarranted. The writing lends itself to those kinds of questions. But if they did ask, I would now suspect that the actual facts are much less colorful than the story reads.
Because of the possibility of misinterpretation, I’m often surprised when people write stories like that, that they often get so mad when the people reading the story read it at face value instead of adding in more of the mundane details that were absent from the original writing. In some cases, if the posts were written with the mundane details added in, the anecdote or story would almost hardly have been worth comment.
And that, my friends, is the longest link in history.
I believe that long ass link broke the boards for a while.
The OP was a small anecdote of how my kid embarassed me. I provided enough facts to fulfill the topic. The fact that additional details were demanded and given does not change that. The facts are same, it’s the details not relevant to the purpose of the story you are all concerned about. If I try really really hard, I might be able to remember what I was wearing that day, but that’s not going to change the events of the story is it? Neither did the additional details. I guess I could have added a parenthetical of “oh of course I cleaned it up” in the OP, but I underestimated critical and/or rational thought.
The only thing different is the level of detail - details that do not change the purpose of the story, which was to convey an event that my child embarassed me. It has the same cast of characters, the same location, the same event, the same outcome. It may be ‘ordinary’ in your life to clean up shit, but I’ll venture to guess that it’s not part of the McDonald’s employee packet. I was embarassed, otherwise, why would have I have posted the story in a thread about what my kid has done to embarass me. I’m not really sure a 2yro can express or experience embarassment.
Really, I thought the busybody comment was off mark. I think it’s more of ‘makes mole hills into mountains’ probably solely based on my comment to WhyNot. I’ve got nothing against WhyNot, in fact, I enjoy her posts, discounting this thread of course. Your questions are not material to the story or what the story was conveying (neither were the additional details provided in this thread, but I’m tired of accomodating petty requests).
My God are you really suggesting that I shouldn’t feel sorry for the McDonald’s employee? If you can immediately imagine that I ran helter skelter from the restaurant, how can you not imagine what an enclosed series of tubes smell like after a dirty diaper is removed? Really, are employees at McDonald’s that far below you that you can’t feel compassion for them when they have to clean up shit from your kid?? (See what I did there?) Yes, I would want the slide sanitized, even if the offenderati had used napkins and windex (WAG) to clean up.
It was a mundane story, hence the shortness of the OP. Did you look at that thread? Most of the stories were short, sweet, conveyed the embarassment. Mine was no different. The OP and the ‘revised version’ are the same story with varying amounts of details. The facts are the same: kid took diaper off, kid’s brother and cousin announced it, kid made mess in McDonald’s play thing, McDonald’s employee had to clean it, I felt sorry for said employee, I was embarassed, I won’t go back to the McDonald’s. I will concede that you were provided with the additional fact that my now 8yro is embarassed to go. Just because some people have a much more fertile imagination or need every minute detail explained does not change the facts of the story or it’s intended purpose. I deemed, righty or wrongly, that the details provided in this thread were not relevant to conveying how my child embarassed me.
I missed a quote here, but what difference does it make if my brother passed out or was in danger of blood loss? One could infer from the “he got 10 stitches and a scar that looks like Yoda” that he pulled through just fine. Or do we only infer the worst case scenerio?
If the OP had been read at face value we wouldn’t be here would we? The story wasn’t worth comment before, except maybe other than: eww, that is embarassing.
Holy crap, H&R. Way to overanalyze things. I bet we could take any post on that thread and dissect it to the point where the poster is a lying, conniving monster of misinformation, but is that necessary? Let he who is free from ever having edited a story cast the first stone.
Perhaps, and of course it’s possible to intentionally misinterpret something. But I don’t think that’s what happened here.
Off the top of my head, I can think of three people who write in the dramatic style of the person being Pitted and all three have been called into the Pit to account for details. I don’t think that’s coincidence. And oddly, all of them have been very angry about it, despite the fact that people really were believing their story as originally written.
Btw, you didn’t really have to graphically show us how easy it is for you to jump to conclusions. Really. 
Perhaps you think that we’re all like that which may be the reason for your post. 
Well, smiles right back at’cha.
I have found that teaching by examples is best.