4 ms·
"After suggesting earlier this week that a link existed between the creators of Silk Road and Bitcoin" Wait, what? They didn't suggest a link between "the crea
by theboywho 13y ago
"After suggesting earlier this week that a link existed between the creators of Silk Road and Bitcoin"
Wait, what? They didn't suggest a link between "the creators of the Silk" Road and "Bitcoin" but with "the creators of the Silk road" and "the creators of Bitcoin"
I see more journalists trying to jump on the Bitcoin train but oh boy...they fail miserably. It's scary when you think this might be the case with all other topics, not just bitcoin.
- proksoup 13y agoWhat you're pointing out is your misunderstanding of the authors intended use of language (I'm not saying it's grammatically correct, but their intention is obvious.) "a link existed between the creators of Silk Road and Bitcoin" === "a link existed between the creators of Silk Road and the creators of Bitcoin". The "creators of" phrase applies to both subjects (or subject/object, I get those words confused) --- this is a common grammatical construct regardless of my confusion of the words subject and object --- the application of the phrase to both I mean.
- theboywho 13y agoYou make a valid point, but how about the title: "Report linking Bitcoin and Silk Road retracted"?
- bobbles 13y agoThink back to how news reporters tried explaining the internet when they had never used it and had no idea how it worked. You wouldn't even today expect a news reader to be able to explain how the internet works even though they probably use it 24/7. People will write what they think people want to read about, the key is trying to find the articles with proper research.