4 ms·
> Better? Not really. The original document contained an outright lie which have now removed because it was exposed. If you didn’t accept it was a lie, you w
by zepto 5y ago
> Better?
Not really. The original document contained an outright lie which have now removed because it was exposed.
If you didn’t accept it was a lie, you wouldn’t have removed it.
This has nothing to do with imperfect accuracy. It has to do with you writing an outright falsehood.
- originalcvk 5y agoIn a 1700+ word article, you found two words which were part of an analogy you disagreed with, and admit that the article clarifies in detail all of your concerns. I changed these two words from "just like" to "similar to", which solves your "problem", and you still aren't happy because it was "an outright lie". It was not a lie, only deliberate misinterpretation could possibly frame it that way, so I guess I can't make you happy. Wish you the best though!
- zepto 5y agoAt the beginning of an article you told an outright lie. Later you equivocate. The idea that a lie stops being a lie because of the number of words you say later is obviously absurd. As I have pointed out this is a motte and Bailey fallacy. Also, it’s still a completely misleading statement. The change to ‘similar to’ doesn’t make it true. It still isn’t true, only now you have some wiggle room to claim it’s not a lie. You are still trying to misleading people into thinking that NFTs confer ownership of the media.