In all cases, the statement is not to be dismissed outright. It is the responsibility of those who hear the statement to take a look at what is said and how it is said (the situation, circumstances, manner of speaking, etc.) and to evaluate for themselves whether it is a truth about person B.
If it is a truth, then it is B’s choice whether they choose to accept it (positive or negative), and what they wish to do with it.
If it isn’t a truth, or they don’t see it as a truth, even if many people were to say the same thing (again, whether it is positive or negative), then it would be a violation of person B’s integrity for them to take that evaluation into themselves as a truth, though if B is honest and self-correcting, they will still take it as input until they are clear about it in themselves.
If it becomes clear that person A has one or more agendas, which always introduce a level of untruth to whatever communications are offered, then it is again up to person B to see that and to take that into account for all subsequent communications coming from person A, until either person A is no longer in their life or until person A shows by repeated clear, neutral communications that they have cleared that agenda in themselves.
Ultimately, in short, it is up to person B to practice discernment about input coming from others and to decide for themselves what is true and what is not for them. In regard to person A, person B must really LOOK at what is going on and must pay attention to any red flags he or she might see or feel. If none are seen, then either there aren’t any issues there, or there are and person B isn’t seeing things because there is a life lesson there. Either way, as long as B does due diligence, examines everything closely and with an open mind, keeps his or her side of the street clean, and accepts 100% responsibility for him- or herself, then that is what matters most for person B.
