Jump to content
Mcripple

Thread title deleted to pacify very sensitive people

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, aye-epp said:

thanks for the link to the actual source.  seems like this is a requirement that comes with any news lately.

clearly, cointelegraph intended malice with this article.

Yeh he says retail not Ripple. Guess we should give the journalist the benefit of the doubt? He was probably running out of things to write about, and misheard. It's not easy to come up with crypto articles all day long.

Regarding the post though, do we only want positive articles here? It took 2 pages of ad hominem attacks before the central argument was refuted. 

Edited by karlos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Mcripple said:

Also I hope this IS a garbage article but I would like to know why you think the basic them of the piece is garbage. 

 

53 minutes ago, princesultan said:

How are there actually people here that are bashing the OP? This is a very valid article to post. Not everything here has to be all rosy all the time for everyone

Accuracy. The article misquoted the speaker. One should always check the source when reading crypto blogs. I don't know if they do this kind of thing intentionally or if they're just incompetence but finding the source is always in every one's best interest. 

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, karlos said:

Yeh he says retail not Ripple. Guess we should give the journalist the benefit of the doubt? He was probably running out of things to write about, and misheard. It's not easy to come up with crypto articles all day long.

Regarding the post though, do we only want positive articles here? It took 2 pages of ad hominem attacks before the central argument was refuted. 

It’s a defensive pattern to a very real trend on this forum.  Maybe this case was a unicorn but you can’t deny the pattern of new users popping in, in our best interest, to share some “news” with us, emphasizing a fuddish post title.  

Low barrier to entry and oversight issues are what leads to the aggressive self-policing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, karlos said:

Theres a difference between refuting FUD and instantly attacking new members though. How do you expect a community to grow if new members are nuked for asking honest questions?

Like I said, maybe a unicorn here.  But the list of topics that match my description is much longer.  I suggest dealing with that issue as a means of fostering a stronger community.  The FUD flood is running off more high quality users than me making an occasional stand against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...