48 ms·

You justify this title because of some other company hired an unrelated lawyer that worked on a case with another lawyer 15 years ago? Seriously now lol

• jjulius 4y ago
  >You justify this title... Seriously now lol What's with the snark? The title itself is technically accurate. That is "a link". There's nothing to justify. What you want to do is debate the strength of that link. That's fine, but it does nothing to change the accuracy of the title. A connection is a connection, like it or not.
  • arisAlexis 4y ago
    There is no lin. Corporate lawyers work in hundreds of cases during their career and you cannot say that company X is guilty because Y guy worked N years before in a guilty company. That's just insanely wrong, factually.
    • jjulius 4y ago
      The headline does not say "company Z is guilty because Y guy worked N years before in a guilty company". That is in the body of the article, and again, that is what you have an issue with. Again - a link is a link, regardless of whether or not it means anything. It is a connection between two entities; nothing more, nothing less. They touch each other, and that is literally what is happening here. That link can be anything - something interesting, or something not - but it remains a link regardless. In this case, your point is, "That is a link, but I find that link weak and don't believe it means anything".
      • arisAlexis 4y ago
        Would you think if the dog of SBF ate the same food as the dog of a former Enron employ would be a link?