5 ms·
> The section I labelled as nonsense research was the stuff about the £2m. What is the relevance of that? >> Addressing the small balance sheet is of direct re
by jcahill 6y ago
> The section I labelled as nonsense research was the stuff about the £2m. What is the relevance of that?
>> Addressing the small balance sheet is of direct relevance.
> This article is not his worst offending
Your attitude toward the author isn't a critique of the article, which is short and easily verifiable in its claims.
Having preexisting beef is not a useful source criticism when the facts are so easy to check.
> but it is HN policy to replace articles with more substantive and less emotive ones if possible.
The FT article is not more substantive wrt the Ayanda Capital deal.
- JoeSmithson 6y ago> "Addressing the small balance sheet is of direct relevance." Could you explain the relevance...? > "The FT article is not more substantive wrt the Ayanda Capital deal." Firstly, it is, because it includes a response from Ayanda, which is a basic principle of journalism. Secondly, my entire point is that focusing on this one company is the problem. Anyway I don't want to argue this any more, the mods can make up their own mind with regards to which article is better and switch if they feel it is appropriate.