3 ms·

The links in the article point to various things the author uncovered over time. You could habe taken one example and shown that the author is overstating or m

The links in the article point to various things the author uncovered over time. You could habe taken one example and shown that the author is overstating or misrepresenting the facts. Instead you choose to call them a "smear merchant". Aren't we on HN to discuss based on presented (and maybe omitted) facts? Or is it to hand out unsubstantiated ad hominems?

jimmydorry 4y ago
The first "exposé" is enough to discredit this person. > The "exposé": https://dailykanban.com/2016/06/08/tesla-suspension-breakage-not-crime-coverup/ https://dailykanban.com/2016/06/08/tesla-suspension-breakage... > Tesla's response: https://www.tesla.com/blog/grain-of-salt https://www.tesla.com/blog/grain-of-salt Keep in mind too, that this blogger gave us the totally unbiased “Tesla Death Watch” blogpost.
Splatter 4y ago
This thread is replete with ad hominems, mind reading, and speculation ("admit it, Musk's bid for Twitter was to unmuzzle Trump". No proof offered though). I'm okay with Musk. If you're not, fine. Why the need to constantly assert evil intentions by those you disagree with? It's gets tiring.
- sdoering 4y ago
  I actually have no opinion on Musk. I just don't care enough to form an opinion. I just stated that I would have wished for a fact based discussion. I don't know if what the author of the piece stated was true, based in fact, exaggerated or what not. But there were a lot of factual claims to be potentially attacked. Yet OP choose to go the ad hominem route. My problem is, that this doesn't help me as uninformed outside reader in evaluating the claims of the original piece. Not sure if this is what OP intended, but probably not. But not engaging on a factual level strengthens the original arguments for the external observer. It is a signal to the ingroup on the cost of loosing credibility with the outgroup. Edit: Typo

jimmydorry 4y ago

The first "exposé" is enough to discredit this person. > The "exposé": https://dailykanban.com/2016/06/08/tesla-suspension-breakage-not-crime-coverup/ https://dailykanban.com/2016/06/08/tesla-suspension-breakage... > Tesla's response: https://www.tesla.com/blog/grain-of-salt https://www.tesla.com/blog/grain-of-salt Keep in mind too, that this blogger gave us the totally unbiased “Tesla Death Watch” blogpost.

Splatter 4y ago

This thread is replete with ad hominems, mind reading, and speculation ("admit it, Musk's bid for Twitter was to unmuzzle Trump". No proof offered though). I'm okay with Musk. If you're not, fine. Why the need to constantly assert evil intentions by those you disagree with? It's gets tiring.

sdoering 4y ago
I actually have no opinion on Musk. I just don't care enough to form an opinion. I just stated that I would have wished for a fact based discussion. I don't know if what the author of the piece stated was true, based in fact, exaggerated or what not. But there were a lot of factual claims to be potentially attacked. Yet OP choose to go the ad hominem route. My problem is, that this doesn't help me as uninformed outside reader in evaluating the claims of the original piece. Not sure if this is what OP intended, but probably not. But not engaging on a factual level strengthens the original arguments for the external observer. It is a signal to the ingroup on the cost of loosing credibility with the outgroup. Edit: Typo