> Not really And again, "con artist" was not talking about start-up. > This is absolutely the implication of what you said. That is incorrect. I can see why

> Not really And again, "con artist" was not talking about start-up. > This is absolutely the implication of what you said. That is incorrect. I can see why you can interpret it like that, and indeed I should have been more clear, but it's just incorrect to pretend that there is a logical implication. It's more like saying "I don't know how I feel about Ted Cruz, but then again, once, I voted for a rapist". In this case, it does not mean that I imply that Ted Cruz is a rapist, it just mean that my bar is as low as voting for a rapist. It does not mean I'm saying Ted Cruz is a rapist, it can totally mean that Ted Cruz is probably therefore above the bar. This is way more what I've said in the previous comment: "US people are less uncomfortable with start-up that will have unrealistically ambitious claims, but then again, US people are less unforgiving with con artists, so it's not surprising". > but "con artists" is a lot more specific and critical than that, and that's what I was responding to. And again, even if we go to the "start-up / scam" discussion, none of that is saying that all start-up are scam or that none of the non-start-up are not scam, but again, some start-ups are scam, this is just a fact. You seem to react like if saying that some start-ups are scam is going to far.