Hacker News Reader

I am not calling EJ a liar. This isn't a football game.

You say it "isn't a football game," but either she's telling the truth on the bullying point or she's not. You clearly believe the latter is a strong enough possibility that you condemned my comments, based on my belief in what she has said. So you aren't calling her a liar... are you calling her "confused"? "Misguided"?

I've made my point why I think she's the most believable currently. You, however, don't want to acknowledge that you doubt her.

Why does anybody have to be calling her anything for certain? If one believes that they don't have enough information to determine with any significance whether she's more likely to be telling the truth or telling a mistaken account of events (whether intentionally or otherwise), it would be best to not take her words as more trustworthy than Airbnb's or vice versa. "I don't know" is a perfectly legitimate point of view and "wait and see" a perfectly legitimate action given that point of view.

She's given extremely detailed, well-written accounts of everything that has transpired. Nothing she has said has been disputed by any party.

I think the better question is, where does this doubt come from, and where do the attacks against the victim come from (just a difficult customer, batshit, drama queen...)? I suspect purely loyalty.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com