3 ms·
In 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 concer
by originalcvk 5y ago
In 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.