3 ms·
You realize that isn't how it works, right? It shouldn't be OK to make wild claims without evidence that need to be backed up. It's the other way: you need good
by roflyear 3y ago
You realize that isn't how it works, right? It shouldn't be OK to make wild claims without evidence that need to be backed up. It's the other way: you need good evidence to back up wild claims.
- mandmandam 3y agoWhat "wild claim" do you have in mind? The article seemed pretty clear about where evidence was lacking; and is more densely packed with links than >95% of mainstream news articles. Even if one were to completely dismiss everything fta that was even slightly suspect, you'd still have more insight into why JP Morgan might intentionally delete tens of millions of emails. Forty-seven million emails. 47,000,000. "Accidentally". Even if you could believe this - wow - even if you could take that at face value, the fine worth ~45 minutes or so of profit is still preposterous.
- roflyear 3y agoThe wild claim from several links in this discussion seem to be some kind of jewish mobster financial conspiracy. How many emails do you think JPM receives a year?