You're actually saying that people who were suspicious when a guy claimed he had pancreatic cancer and no weight loss (and a leisurely four months between diagnosis and surgery) are foolish, petty and heartless? Get a grip.
Nope. I'm saying that people who drew unwarranted conclusions now look foolish, petty, and heartless. There's a huge gulf between, "hmm, something here doesn't smell quite right" and "LOL SCAMDY LOL, stupid DUmmies fell for it again!!!!11!"
Did you happen to see the dU thread where it was revealed that John Ashcroft had been hospitalized for pancreatitis? It was full of DUmmies celebrating his pain, and liberalnurse (who like you, thinks all the folks who thought this might be a scam are heartless scum) commented on how morphine doesn't cut the pain, and it can last a long time. Then she included a smily face. Charming, eh?
No, I must have missed that thread, which is a shame because I'm sure I enjoyed it. I always like watching the left make idiots of themselves. Now, I don't know what your upbringing was like, but my mother always told me that two wrongs don't make a right. Yes, the DUmmies gloat about conservatives who suffer illness. Yes, this makes them scumbags. If your goal is to be a scumbag yourself, by all means follow in their footsteps.
Did you see the DU threads where some of the posters were single moms and they said they were sending child support checks? Who was watching out for them? You?
Heck no, not me. Nor you. Being a conservative, I believe that adults "watch out for" themselves. I trust rational (a description which admittedly may not apply to the majority of DUers) people to make their own decisions. Children need someone to "watch out for" them. Adults are on their own.
Were we really foolish to see what looked like fraud and ask questions?
No. You were foolish to reach a conclusion and declare it with certainty in the face of insufficient evidence.
Were we really petty to ask the same questions Will pitt and other DUers had asked?
No. You were petty to dub Stephenson "Scamdy" when the fact of the scam had not been proven by clear and convincing evidence, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt.
Were we heartless? To be heartless we would have had to know he was dying and then deride him, but we did nothing of the sort.
I disagree that that's the only definition of "heartless".
Could you please tell me what it was about the "I have pancreatic cancer but I haven't got any of the symptoms and I support socialized medicine but I want private donations and I want cash, not grants or charity help and don't worry about setting up a trust I'll just take that money and I'll be waiting for months to get the surgery even though this is one of the deadliest diseases known to man and what do you know now I'm in the ICU on a cell phone singing show tunes an hour after a Whipple" story that was supposed to inspire confidence in us?
Logic lesson time.
Consider the two propositions:
A: It is certain that Andy has pancreatic cancer and needs a Whipple
B: It is certain that Andy is a big scammer, and isn't even sick.
Are A and B direct opposites? If A is false, is B necessarily true? If B is false, is A necessarily true?
No, it's not. There's plenty of room between them. Of course Andy's story was suspicious. Of course it didn't inspire much confidence. It does not follow that the whole thing was a scam.
One of the things in this world that causes me the most pain is when I see FReepers acting like DUmmies. DUmmies very frequently leap to conclusions on insufficient evidence. Examples abound. "Larry O'Donnell said that he thinks Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source, therefore Rove will be frogmarched out of the White House in manacles and leg-irons." "Jeff Gannon appears to be a homosexual, therefore he was having an affair with a high-level member of the administration." "The chairman of Diebold lives in Ohio and supports Bush, therefore OMG BUSH STOLE OHIO!!!!11!!!!!"
They look stupid when they do this. If you emulate them, you're not balancing the scales, you're just making yourself look stupid right alongside them.
Why in the world wouldn't we be suspicious? Why in the world wouldn't the DUers?
You should have been suspicious. As should they have been. In this country, we don't convict based on suspicion.
Hey, here's an excellent example of the sort of thing I'm talking about. Here's something suspicious for you: there is still no obituary for Stephenson in the Seattle papers, several days after the fact. This is something to arouse suspicion. But anybody who made the leap to "OMG Stephenson is still alive, the stories of his death were totally fake!" would be an idiot. For all we know, it might be true. But it hasn't been proven, and to declare it so would be way premature.