You’re an idiot, but worse, you’re a poor writer. Let me count the ways:

Here’s a primer on what “moving goalposts” in an argument means:

Your original point was that Edie was making the story up or that it didn’t happen: she didn’t, it did. You moved the goalpost to saying that it was a fake story, but it hasn’t been denied by the airline despite being widely publicized, so it appears an altercation occurred. Your next moved goalpost after that was…

You are not dedicated to knowing the truth.

So you didn’t actually read the linked Twitter thread. Hint: it isn’t about getting money, it’s about respect and uneven service.

So, are you suggesting that she completely fabricated that Twitter thread, or...?

So to make it clear, you actually believe that the FA knew there was a dog in the bag, and decided to VIOLATE HER COMPANY POLICIES in order to put the dog into the overhead bin?

There’s no someone to burn. The FA is anonymous.

No, I am not the personal keeper of this story. But honestly, you’re obviously dedicated to seeing this story from a defensive perspective regarding the flight attendant. It is was it is, I’m not that invested in convincing someone like you. I was more interested in getting known facts in front of the many people…

I read that as just stating what the FA said at that point, which frankly sounds like a lie on the FA’s part after discovering the dog has died.

The family has already come forward with proof that they paid for the puppy and the witness photos show the deceased dog in what’s clearly a TSA-approved soft-sided carrier. Those things can be confirmed as facts.

I was putting information into the context of the whole conversation on this thread, which started out with a lot of wrong info. It seemed like, based on your comment, you were agreeing with that misinformation (“So then she should have been aware that the dog carrier was supposed to be under the seat in front of her…

Flight attendants may not be the police, but they have a lot of power on planes. Federal laws protect them explicitly (this is taken from a comment in this same discussion from Jalopnik, but you could look up the laws to verify if you wanted):

Replying to myself because I refuse to signal-boost an asshole...

I recognize your username and I’m dismissing you because you are nonsense, about this and everything.

Read more than one comment.

That ABC article came out (long) after the two first witnesses came forward with accounts that contradict it. It is, as far as I know, unique from all the other reports. I first saw this story on Twitter where one of the two original witnesses reported it, prior to the news orgs picking it up.

To quote someone else in the comments here: “We trust our air crews to know the aircraft better than we do. After all, when you’re on an aircraft they’re basically the police. This is just flat out unacceptable.”

I have an ache for internet vengeance as well that I’m not particularly proud of...

Honestly, the ease with which the commenters here rushed to blame the dog’s family shocked me. The comments on Gizmodo and Jalopnik’s versions of this same story are much more thoughtful.