4 ms·

LOL! HSBC: another convicted money launderer! (still are only alleged against this person).

• nthcolumn 9y ago
  Not sure why the above fact is being discredited or not deemed as a worthy contribution to the conversation?
  • wongarsu 9y ago
    The fact is fine, the comment is bad. Starting comments with 'LOL!' doesn't fit with the usual style of hacker news (why is he even laughing???). Stating "another" and then immediately stating why it isn't "another" (an arrest is no conviction) sounds really manipulative. And the fact (that HSBC was involved in money laundering) was already heavily implied by the parent comment, making it less interesting as the only value of the comment.
    • nthcolumn 9y ago
      Heavily implied? I thought OP had merely chosen an unfortunate example which coincidentally turned out to be one of the biggest money-launderers and then was minded to state that the individual had not yet been convicted of that offense unlike HSBC. I'm not sure how it is manipulative - to what end? But I take it that I rather ruined the joke.
  • joosters 9y ago
    Because two wrongs don't make a right? Murders are news, people don't generally say "so what? someone has been murdered before" when there is a killing.
    • nthcolumn 9y ago
      Who was saying 'so what'? Certainly not me. I was amused by what was, apparently, an obvious joke.