Thoughts? Oh, and don't ask me-- I don't have any.

...wow. You don't lie about something like that...

Sometimes, the stupidity of our species astounds me. This would be one of those times.

*Speechless*

I think she's proved her point, whether it was actually an experiment or not. It's very easy to con people into feeling sorry for you. What's disgusting is that she's probably diminished that "good spirit" in a lot of people. Actually, I'm glad she did, because now they'll be more careful, though hopefully they'll all get their money back. Not to say she shouldn't be jailed for this, or forced to pay more money than simply returning what was donated.

But people are too trusting, and they just have to accept that the nice face people present is even easier maintain when you can spend time plotting it, and don't have to worry about acting - conning is even easier to do online. They shouldn't have believed her right out, but they did. Hopefully, they've got something good out of this, which is that the internet is not full of nice people, even if you're on a site that seems nice.

However, I hope they don't get to hateful and annoyed about this, and remain neutral, not unfriendly, to strangers online. But I doubt anyone who donated and then found out the truth will be convinced so easily again.

Start reading comments. There are 20 pages of them. :mellow:

Oh, and if you don't want to--

I half agree with this person. I agree that she isn't pure evil, that most of the people are probably mostly angree about the money, etc. But while it's sad people have become less trusting, I don't think it's neccessarily bad. When you donate money to someone, you have a right to know you're donating it to something, and that any feelings you're donating with it (I know, sounds wierd) are actually sincere. But this was basically a test to manipulate people's good emotions, and it makes sense that a lot of them are hurt. The money may be what people are reacting to, but what she did to the people who trusted her story is a horrible crime. Also, he acts like money shouldn't be so valued - but lets face it, money is important, and to come up with something that toys with peoples emotions to get money is wrong, whether you return it or not.

Also, I disagree when he says "I see no reason not to take her at face value". Possibly she learned a lesson, but lying in this case for sympathy would be as easy as lying beforehand about her cat being injured. Note that the message has the exact same pattern: a story inciting sympathy, with a lesson that you shouldn't be too trusting. Just that in the second case, the teller incited the crime, while in the first the story was invented. We shouldn't say she's a liar for sure, but we shouldn't just go right out and say, "ok we believe you now, we know you're sorry, etc". People can decieve more than once.

I think Mark Biddlecom refuses to see that some of the negative feelings, though not all for sure, are not necessarily for the worst. Should she be given sympathy again? That would be a worse crime than letting her keep the money.

EDIT-If you want an example of why she could be lying about this too, go here for an AIM conversation between her and the person who exposed her. Note that she goes through every length to keep the thing going - she tries to act like she isn't guilty, doesn't care, etc, even though if she was innocent and had proof, all she'd have to do would be to give the name. I seriously doubt she would spend that much time lying to a close friend just to keep an experiment going. If she had confessed on her own, I'd believe her, but confessing now, after Foxfur posted up evidence against her, just seems like an attempt to curry some favor. Sorry.

EDIT2-Where can Mark's post be found, do you know? Like, what page and journal entry, since there are three in Cityglitter's journal dealing with this subject?