Looking a gift horse in the mouth

A friend of mine, Kate, runs an advice blog - she receives letters from the the public and publishes them along with advice. We all know that lots of things go on behind closed doors - so it's not surprising that some of the letters concern behaviour which many people might find unusual.

Quite frequently, someone on the blog says that the letters aren't real. Occasionally, someone will outright accuse Kate of making them up herself.

I've always been troubled by these sort of accusations. Despite them being untrue, they've always stuck me as being just well... arrogant. Sometimes, a person with reasonable knowledge of a topic will comment, and dispute facts stated in the poster's letter. That's great when it happens, because people can back up their opinions with examples. But these other responses fall into three main categories, all of them with an undertone of arrogance:

• This cannot be real. No one could be that foolish/immoral/strange/etc.: The underlying premise here is that the commenter is judging the letter based on their own experience of life. If the events described don't fit with their own narrow preconceptions, then the letter must be wrong - because there is no way the person commenting could be the one that's wrong, is there?
• This isn't true, but you've all (including Kate) been sucked in by it: Similar to the one above, statements like this one offer no evidence as to why it isn't true. It is the commenter's opinion, stated as fact along with an added dash of superiority; I'm smarter than all of you because I worked it out and you didn't.
• Kate obviously makes these up: This one bugs me most of all, because as well as presenting no evidence that the letter is not real, they also accuse someone that they've never met of deliberately being deceitful. This accusation, naturally, is also delivered without any supporting evidence.

Occasionally, I'm sure, someone will write a fake letter and try to get it published. But often, a letter writer might change facts or omit details to protect their identity. If a person categorically states that a letter is false, then they deny the possibility that it might be true. And if it is true, then there is a person - a fellow human being - who is in pain, and reaching out for help. A person who is big enough to admit they don't have all the answers - rather a stark contrast to someone who can arrogantly claim to know (with no basis) what is truth and what is lies.

An advice blog is built on pillars: on one, advice is offered by both the blogger and the commentors. The second pillar is that the blogger is providing entertainment to the readership.

To deny the possibility of the letter writer being real, and to offer scorn and disbelief instead of genuine advice, is to swing a hammer at one of those pillars.

And to accuse the blogger of lies and deceit strikes at the other pillar: Hand in hand with the arrogance comes a sens of entitlement. Bloggers, whether they are paid or not, generally publish their work for free. No one compels the readers to come: they do so voluntarily, because they wish to be informed or educated. If you are invited over to a friend's house for a meal, would you then insult their cooking? Are you likelyto be invited back for another meal? So, by going to a blog and insulting your host, in what way are you encouraging them to continue entertaining you, and the other readers?