5 ms·

> Why do you imply that the members of this panel are being disingenuous? The original article claimed, "To balance things out, Farhad invited Reddit founder A

> Why do you imply that the members of this panel are being disingenuous? The original article claimed, "To balance things out, Farhad invited Reddit founder Alexis Ohanian, but he dropped out, so it was just the three of us." Saying that Alexis "dropped out" is simply wrong, so the statement is disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst.

dclowd9901 14y ago
Farhad didn't know what happened. All he knew is that Ohanian was supposed to at least be asked, and he supposedly wasn't even corresponded with, which could, by all accounts, not even be true. He was on the invite list, and decided against. I'm not sure what part doesn't correlate with "dropped out."
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- weareconvo 14y ago
  Now you are the one who is being disengenuous. The context of "dropped out" is universally "The person went from participating to not participating". Alexis was never participating.
- mpyne 14y ago
  How can you possibly "drop out" of a panel that you explicitly said you were never planning on attending? Dropping out means that you were planning to go and then you had to cancel. Whether Farhad knew this before or not, Alexis's email was very clear and so there's no excuse to claim today that Alexis dropped out of anything.
thwest 14y ago
Being disingenuous or dishonest would require knowledge on her part that she was misrepresenting. Given that the event description originally included Alexis, and the obvious chain of miscommunication above, is it not a reasonable assumption that Rebecca was simply misinformed?
- Locke1689 14y ago
  This article was clearly written post-email exchange. At this point the author knows definitely that Alexis never planned on attending and that the idea that he would in the first place was simply a communications breakdown. The author is now being deliberately disingenuous.
  - nollidge 14y ago
    > At this point the author knows definitely that Alexis never planned on attending How so? Farhad is not Rebecca. She may be, as we speak, still completely unaware of Farhad's e-mail exchange with Alexis.
    - Locke1689 14y ago
      Perhaps. It seems strange that one would write an article without checking on this fact, and personally I don't believe I will frequent this person's writing again, but it is certainly far more forgivable than dishonesty.
      - potatolicious 14y ago
        "Hey Farhad, whatever happened to Alexis at the panel?" "Oh, uh, it fell through." "Oh, ok." I can think of hundreds of other variations of the same exchange that don't include negligence on the author's part. This isn't a cross examination - which is the price we pay when we gleefully shoved a knife in the chest of real journalism and twisted it hard, and went and partied with blogs afterward.
        Locke1689 14y ago
        Indeed, but this is also the reason why I mostly frequent technical blogs. I'm afraid I hold people who write about people to a higher standard. When you risk impugning someone's reputation you have a higher responsibility.
        nollidge 14y ago

dclowd9901 14y ago

Farhad didn't know what happened. All he knew is that Ohanian was supposed to at least be asked, and he supposedly wasn't even corresponded with, which could, by all accounts, not even be true. He was on the invite list, and decided against. I'm not sure what part doesn't correlate with "dropped out."

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
weareconvo 14y ago
Now you are the one who is being disengenuous. The context of "dropped out" is universally "The person went from participating to not participating". Alexis was never participating.
mpyne 14y ago
How can you possibly "drop out" of a panel that you explicitly said you were never planning on attending? Dropping out means that you were planning to go and then you had to cancel. Whether Farhad knew this before or not, Alexis's email was very clear and so there's no excuse to claim today that Alexis dropped out of anything.

thwest 14y ago

Being disingenuous or dishonest would require knowledge on her part that she was misrepresenting. Given that the event description originally included Alexis, and the obvious chain of miscommunication above, is it not a reasonable assumption that Rebecca was simply misinformed?

Locke1689 14y ago
This article was clearly written post-email exchange. At this point the author knows definitely that Alexis never planned on attending and that the idea that he would in the first place was simply a communications breakdown. The author is now being deliberately disingenuous.
- nollidge 14y ago
  > At this point the author knows definitely that Alexis never planned on attending How so? Farhad is not Rebecca. She may be, as we speak, still completely unaware of Farhad's e-mail exchange with Alexis.
  - Locke1689 14y ago
    Perhaps. It seems strange that one would write an article without checking on this fact, and personally I don't believe I will frequent this person's writing again, but it is certainly far more forgivable than dishonesty.
    - potatolicious 14y ago
      "Hey Farhad, whatever happened to Alexis at the panel?" "Oh, uh, it fell through." "Oh, ok." I can think of hundreds of other variations of the same exchange that don't include negligence on the author's part. This isn't a cross examination - which is the price we pay when we gleefully shoved a knife in the chest of real journalism and twisted it hard, and went and partied with blogs afterward.
      - Locke1689 14y ago
        Indeed, but this is also the reason why I mostly frequent technical blogs. I'm afraid I hold people who write about people to a higher standard. When you risk impugning someone's reputation you have a higher responsibility.
      - nollidge 14y ago