4 ms·
Rather worryingly this got flagged and killed. Hopefully we're still at the point where we can sensibly discuss a WSJ article.
by andybak 9y ago
Rather worryingly this got flagged and killed. Hopefully we're still at the point where we can sensibly discuss a WSJ article.
- tadasv 9y agoAgreed. This is so ridiculous. I saw the link on the front page. Now it's gone. At least it exists in search results.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- oriolid 9y agoFlagged and killed? I just got here through front page. I know you like being a victim, but you are not.
- dang 9y agoThis comment breaks the site guideline which asks: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." At the time the parent was posted, it was flagged off the front page. Worse, of course, is the personal attack. We ban accounts that do that, so please don't do it again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- andybak 9y agoThanks. I was slightly taken aback by that response. Especially because I'm probably not the straw man that the comment was directed at.
- city41 9y agoI'm unable to sensibly discuss a WSJ article because I am not willing to pay to read it. Where does HN stand on pay to read articles? I didn't flag it btw.
- sehugg 9y agoThe WSJ has gotten very Murdoch-y lately, and continues to contradict their own reporting to push Trump talking points on the editorial page [1]. Nowadays I tend to view them with the same suspicion I'd view a Fox News link. Also, there's a paywall. [1] https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/11/the-wall-street-journal-editorial-board-coverage-of-mueller https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/11/the-wall-street-jour...