No, being sceptical is fine. I'm sceptical about everything. I am basing my opinion on what we have been told: he apparently was a victim of abuse. I've no reason to disbelieve him, or assume that he must have been lying. For some reason.mistermack wrote:Wtf, McD?
What are these "experts" ?
Do you know of a qualification in telling when someone is lying, or telling the truth?
Because I don't. You could do a ten year University course, and be no better than you are today.
History is riddled with clever people being taken in by the most unsophisticated liars. As far as I'm concerned, the best guide is their track record, and this guy has been proved a liar from a long time back.
For me, that means I would need proof for ANYTHING that he claimed.
I can't tell if he's lying from listening to him talking. I can't tell if he's not. All I DO get from listening to him, is that he's enjoying the limelight, enjoying being somebody important. And that doesn't clash with him inventing stuff. That's actually the reason why many people do lie and lie.
It's not about being "tough", it's about being sceptical. The opposite of which is gullible.
You arent being sceptical, neutral, above the fray - you are smearing one of those who it appears was a victim of abuse. Other than adopting an angry finger-pointing and insulting persona on a forum, I'm not sure why anyone would want to do that.