Comment by moralestapia 9 months ago [flagged] 14 comments moralestapia Reply ajkjk 9 months 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 9 months 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 9 months 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 9 months ago ?? that quote makes me think it's accurate, not inaccurate ninetyninenine 9 months ago Can you explain your pov in detail? I’m interested. moralestapia 9 months 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 9 months 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 9 months 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 9 months 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 9 months 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 9 months 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 9 months ago ?? that quote makes me think it's accurate, not inaccurate
moralestapia 9 months 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 9 months 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 9 months ago ?? that quote makes me think it's accurate, not inaccurate
crazygringo 9 months 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 9 months ago Can you explain your pov in detail? I’m interested. moralestapia 9 months 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 9 months 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 9 months 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 9 months 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 9 months 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 9 months 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 9 months 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 9 months 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 →