>>38652498I'm genuinely curious... why wouldn't you look into something like this before or even after taking it at face value? I don't even mean because it's some important issue or "how dare you be wrong" or anything, but just... did that seriously sound so mundane and uninteresting that it didn't even occur to you to look it up?
If someone told me this (and I didn't already know that it wasn't true), I would immediately want details and want to see the other submissions—I'm not even surprised that you believed this at a glance, whenever you first saw it, but I just can't imagine hearing such a thing, actually thinking it was true and still not being interested in reading more about it...
