Comment by moralestapia 21 days ago [flagged] 14 comments moralestapia Reply ajkjk 21 days ago if you say something's provably false but you don't prove or even allude to a reason why someone should believe you, um, it's not very convincing moralestapia 21 days ago You're 100% right on that.But this should be enough for you,"This account is based on interviews with dozens of people who lived through one of the wildest business stories of all time" crazygringo 21 days ago That sounds like... they did extensive research and standard journalistic double-checking so it's probably correct?The WSJ isn't some random blog. Regardless of what you think of their opinion pages, their reporting is generally factually legit.So you seem to be suggesting that their story is, indeed, correct. 2 replies → ajkjk 20 days ago ?? that quote makes me think it's accurate, not inaccurate ninetyninenine 21 days ago Can you explain your pov in detail? I’m interested. moralestapia 21 days ago Sure, send me an email and I'll be glad to.I wouldn't feel comfortable writing about it, it's not illegal but it just doesn't feel right. throwaway4727 21 days ago Why wouldn't it feel right? What an odd thing to say.From HN comment guidelines:> The most important principle on HN, though, is to make thoughtful comments. Thoughtful in both senses: civil and substantial.Your claim that this is fiction, without any evidence or "proof", as you put it, is neither substantial nor thoughtful.I am genuinely curious as to why you would make a splash in the comment section with this and then not explain yourself. crazygringo 21 days ago You're willing to make provocative claims here in public, but only back them up privately?Then please don't make provocative claims in public in the first place. It's just trolling then. As the saying goes, put up or shut up. 3 replies →
ajkjk 21 days ago if you say something's provably false but you don't prove or even allude to a reason why someone should believe you, um, it's not very convincing moralestapia 21 days ago You're 100% right on that.But this should be enough for you,"This account is based on interviews with dozens of people who lived through one of the wildest business stories of all time" crazygringo 21 days ago That sounds like... they did extensive research and standard journalistic double-checking so it's probably correct?The WSJ isn't some random blog. Regardless of what you think of their opinion pages, their reporting is generally factually legit.So you seem to be suggesting that their story is, indeed, correct. 2 replies → ajkjk 20 days ago ?? that quote makes me think it's accurate, not inaccurate
moralestapia 21 days ago You're 100% right on that.But this should be enough for you,"This account is based on interviews with dozens of people who lived through one of the wildest business stories of all time" crazygringo 21 days ago That sounds like... they did extensive research and standard journalistic double-checking so it's probably correct?The WSJ isn't some random blog. Regardless of what you think of their opinion pages, their reporting is generally factually legit.So you seem to be suggesting that their story is, indeed, correct. 2 replies → ajkjk 20 days ago ?? that quote makes me think it's accurate, not inaccurate
crazygringo 21 days ago That sounds like... they did extensive research and standard journalistic double-checking so it's probably correct?The WSJ isn't some random blog. Regardless of what you think of their opinion pages, their reporting is generally factually legit.So you seem to be suggesting that their story is, indeed, correct. 2 replies →
ninetyninenine 21 days ago Can you explain your pov in detail? I’m interested. moralestapia 21 days ago Sure, send me an email and I'll be glad to.I wouldn't feel comfortable writing about it, it's not illegal but it just doesn't feel right. throwaway4727 21 days ago Why wouldn't it feel right? What an odd thing to say.From HN comment guidelines:> The most important principle on HN, though, is to make thoughtful comments. Thoughtful in both senses: civil and substantial.Your claim that this is fiction, without any evidence or "proof", as you put it, is neither substantial nor thoughtful.I am genuinely curious as to why you would make a splash in the comment section with this and then not explain yourself. crazygringo 21 days ago You're willing to make provocative claims here in public, but only back them up privately?Then please don't make provocative claims in public in the first place. It's just trolling then. As the saying goes, put up or shut up. 3 replies →
moralestapia 21 days ago Sure, send me an email and I'll be glad to.I wouldn't feel comfortable writing about it, it's not illegal but it just doesn't feel right. throwaway4727 21 days ago Why wouldn't it feel right? What an odd thing to say.From HN comment guidelines:> The most important principle on HN, though, is to make thoughtful comments. Thoughtful in both senses: civil and substantial.Your claim that this is fiction, without any evidence or "proof", as you put it, is neither substantial nor thoughtful.I am genuinely curious as to why you would make a splash in the comment section with this and then not explain yourself. crazygringo 21 days ago You're willing to make provocative claims here in public, but only back them up privately?Then please don't make provocative claims in public in the first place. It's just trolling then. As the saying goes, put up or shut up. 3 replies →
throwaway4727 21 days ago Why wouldn't it feel right? What an odd thing to say.From HN comment guidelines:> The most important principle on HN, though, is to make thoughtful comments. Thoughtful in both senses: civil and substantial.Your claim that this is fiction, without any evidence or "proof", as you put it, is neither substantial nor thoughtful.I am genuinely curious as to why you would make a splash in the comment section with this and then not explain yourself.
crazygringo 21 days ago You're willing to make provocative claims here in public, but only back them up privately?Then please don't make provocative claims in public in the first place. It's just trolling then. As the saying goes, put up or shut up. 3 replies →
if you say something's provably false but you don't prove or even allude to a reason why someone should believe you, um, it's not very convincing
You're 100% right on that.
But this should be enough for you,
"This account is based on interviews with dozens of people who lived through one of the wildest business stories of all time"
That sounds like... they did extensive research and standard journalistic double-checking so it's probably correct?
The WSJ isn't some random blog. Regardless of what you think of their opinion pages, their reporting is generally factually legit.
So you seem to be suggesting that their story is, indeed, correct.
2 replies →
?? that quote makes me think it's accurate, not inaccurate
Can you explain your pov in detail? I’m interested.
Sure, send me an email and I'll be glad to.
I wouldn't feel comfortable writing about it, it's not illegal but it just doesn't feel right.
Why wouldn't it feel right? What an odd thing to say.
From HN comment guidelines:
> The most important principle on HN, though, is to make thoughtful comments. Thoughtful in both senses: civil and substantial.
Your claim that this is fiction, without any evidence or "proof", as you put it, is neither substantial nor thoughtful.
I am genuinely curious as to why you would make a splash in the comment section with this and then not explain yourself.
You're willing to make provocative claims here in public, but only back them up privately?
Then please don't make provocative claims in public in the first place. It's just trolling then. As the saying goes, put up or shut up.
3 replies →