I don’t know if this is a credibility issue, or more an issue of poor communication coupled with an astonishing inability to acknowledge fault.
But several years ago, Broomstick made this claim:
Now, there are a couple ways to read that – a literal claim that there have been zero want ads in the paper for weeks, or a more hyperbolic claim – there are no jobs for which she is suited, or something along those lines.
Another poster in Broomtick’s local area comes along to post links to the online want ads, says the actual paper does have want ads, and so it’s at this point yoiu might expect her to clarify that “NO, repeat NO” want ads was not actually a literal claim.
And in response to another poster’s request for clarification:
Again, a perfect time to back off and say, “Look, obviously there are some jobs listed, but they are unsuitable.”
But instead Broomstick chose to continue to defend her claim, and lashed out at the questioning of her:
Which, of course, was a nice attempt to deflect the specific inquiry about the literal number of ads in the paper onto a more general topic of sympathy for the poor.
I questioned the literal claim, and said it might have been one day, but not weeks. No, she insisted, it had been weeks with no want ads:
The thread degenerated from there, with me continuing to point out that it was fine to have made a hyperbolic statement, but don’t defend it as literal… and if you are defending it as literal, it’s a lie.
In looking back on it, I don’t think the issue was dishonesty. I think it was poor communication skills. A simple rolleyes at the beginning, with a “Yes, genius, you got me. There want ads for electricians and diesel mechanics. Thanks for the catch,” would have defused it.
And of course being me, I couldn’t let it go without an acknowledgement of the misstatement, which was perhaps not my finest hour.
But for whatever it’s worth, this example answers your literal question.