23 ms·
No. The article would have held more credibility in my eyes if she was upfront about the fact there was a conflict of interest before continuing on with the ar
by DigitalSea 12y ago
No.
The article would have held more credibility in my eyes if she was upfront about the fact there was a conflict of interest before continuing on with the article. Heck, even an article on the likes of Techcrunch with even a remote tinge of conflict of interest is disclosed in the first paragraph before you get into the article contents. I legitimately feel misled, I was to feel as though I was reading an impartial account of what happened that night only to be told at the end that the account was from a friend nonetheless.
Lets be honest, in most cases, a friend will always defend another friend regardless of the context or the situation. It is rare that a friend will throw another under the bus, especially in a situation like this. This is why everything Nicole says is hearsay because she could easily be exaggerating what she thought she heard all for the sake of defending her friend. We do not even know for certain if Nicole heard anything to do with what happened, we were offered no new bits of information we did not already have.
- dkrich 12y agoInteresting that you are seemingly willing to take several second-hand accounts and interpretations of what his comments were and the context in which they were made from sources nowhere near the room, yet are okay assuming that what she wrote is merely "hearsay" or "exaggerated" despite her claim that she was sitting next to them during the conversation. I don't, by the way, find this to be a coincident. It seems perfectly logical that you would sit near people you know at a dinner party.