3 ms·
The section I labelled as nonsense research was the stuff about the £2m. What is the relevance of that? This section is the only thing that CM has added, and h
by JoeSmithson 6y ago
The section I labelled as nonsense research was the stuff about the £2m. What is the relevance of that?
This section is the only thing that CM has added, and he has missed all of the other firms that are covered in the FT article.
This article is not his worst offending (that would probably be his ludicrous claims regarding the Skripal poisonings) but it is HN policy to replace articles with more substantive and less emotive ones if possible.
- jcahill 6y ago> The section I labelled as nonsense research was the stuff about the £2m. What is the relevance of that? >> Addressing the small balance sheet is of direct relevance. > This article is not his worst offending Your attitude toward the author isn't a critique of the article, which is short and easily verifiable in its claims. Having preexisting beef is not a useful source criticism when the facts are so easy to check. > but it is HN policy to replace articles with more substantive and less emotive ones if possible. The FT article is not more substantive wrt the Ayanda Capital deal.
- JoeSmithson 6y ago> "Addressing the small balance sheet is of direct relevance." Could you explain the relevance...? > "The FT article is not more substantive wrt the Ayanda Capital deal." Firstly, it is, because it includes a response from Ayanda, which is a basic principle of journalism. Secondly, my entire point is that focusing on this one company is the problem. Anyway I don't want to argue this any more, the mods can make up their own mind with regards to which article is better and switch if they feel it is appropriate.