In this case, it doesn’t matter how long ago it was posted. The thread is accessible on the internet at any time to whomever happens to come along, and unfortunately, it appears to have begun a number of similar repeats of this woman’s story, growing farther afield from her own article and more involved and embellished with each telling.
The response was a general reminder to anyone else who runs upon this, or any other undocumented story, to check sources and be aware of implications and assumptions. It’s a valid reminder at any time. I’m sure everyone can agree, especially when what is being posted makes implications that would have been taken to court ... even 150 years ago.
Letting unfounded responses to undocumented stories go unchecked impacts not just the way we view history, but teaches others that it’s OK to not care about what really happened, whether it be something in the past or to another person. This thread, old or no, was a good place to point this out because the episode IS in the past and documentation COULD be checked, as opposed to a forum opining about a present even that is yet to be investigated and recorded. I’m sure that this person’s relations (and let’s not forget the original author) would be hurt by some of the allegations that can now be found on the internet attached to this story — posts which, in cases, can be tracked back to this thread. I’m not one of them, but I was imaging myself in that position, and I think it’s a worthwhile reversal to consider.
Valid point.