After a terrifying and traumatic incident, Penny Lane Handley, was submitted to a heavy level of false accusations regarding the post that have now been laid to rest:

• -One false accusation was that Penny was not a victim of a fire. 
• -Another false accusation was that Penny had shoes, claiming they were provided before the incident in question.  This claim was heavily insisted upon and leveled in multiple related threads.

We now can clearly identify these accusations as false, due to both the video interview, and from the information inside of the two posts written by both the main individual from the hotel, and the hotel itself.  Other similar accusations will be soon able to be resolved in outreach with the Red Cross.

Both accounts, whether intentionally or unintentionally offer distracting information, about the lack of Penny’s forcible removal.  This is distracting because Penny notes she was not forced in the account itself. How gracefully Penny handled the egregious request while in a state of crisis, however, is at least to the Chateau Louis Hotel and Conference Center’s credit, noted as unimportant, given the circumstances.  

It is clear, the hotel notes she did not have shoes, and it is clear the front desk clerk notes going out of her way to tell Penny a second time that shoes were “required” which logically excludes Penny from being permitted in the dining area.  Penny notes the kicking out was verbal:
“explained i would have to go and if I didn’t leave that security would remove me. I am not sure that I actually believe… but I would not be surprised if they did”.  I catch things like this because of my undergrad study in interpreting ancient text, and in this case, it has to do with not getting distracted from the main meaning of a sentence, due to the extra info it provides.

As my current field is in the behavioral sciences, I have grave concern about how that faulty speculation that she did have shoes is not only a careless error in logic, but like the original incident in question, an egregious act of harm equal to the original, when perpetrated against a victim of a life-altering crisis.  

The relentless accusation demonstrates the need to use careful open-minded methodological approaches, which are hallmarks of Receptive Skepticism, especially when judging people, while integrating perceptions of past experiences.

In particular, Receptive Skepticism opposes public shaming, downvoting, and discourages negativity and hostility.  Receptive Skepticism’s recommended way to proceed from this point is instead of trying to elicit shame, or make people suffer, is to make restitution and fix the problem.

The Chateau Louis is encouraged to reach out, admit fault and try to do what it can to undo the damage from the harmful and hostile experience it unintentionally provided.  This is part of good hotel and service industry behavior.  Those of us involved with Receptive Skepticism can also work with Penny and her team to put an effort out to encourage all hotels to employ better sensitivity training when participating in outreach programs such as this incident.  Victims of crises are particularly vulnerable, and the quality of care that they receive during the early days can make a significant difference.

Chateau Louis, this is ultimately your time to shine.  If you work to make something good out of this, and help get a North American sensitivity campaign underway, you will not only recover from this, but help those in need in the future, avoid a situation like this from happening.

Receptive Skepticism also stresses that it is vital that those people who take issue with Penny regarding her approach online,  especially in science advocacy, and page and group management, open up to that those concerns are to be handled with sensitivity.  They should open to awareness that those concerns do not nullify any moral responsibility to apologize for harmful actions wrongfully perpetrated due to over-enthusiasm about the protests related to those concerns.  RS would like to see those concerns addressed, however, should note that these events make any resolution extremely difficult without some sincere apologies about this harm.  We encourage everyone to feel welcome under the safety of the RS environment, where any concerns can more easily be worked out absent the usual and unproductive distractions from scorning of behavior and beliefs.