WeWork evicted a startup after it published a negative blog post about it

Re:WeWork evicted a startup after it published a negative bl... by wpietri on Saturday July 23, 2016 @04:59PM (#12150984)

I'm not saying you misunderstood; I couldn't know that. I'm saying that in your reply you muddled them. When you say "it is A, not B", you're suggesting that one excludes the other. That's not the case; they're different things.

If you don't like his language, I'd suggest you critique the language instead of contradicting him on a point of analysis.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:WeWork evicted a startup after it published a negative bl... by kafkaesq on Saturday July 23, 2016 @06:09PM (#12151195)

Look, it's the original commenter who used muddled (and misleading) language in the first place, not me. Whether their "analysis" or his "language" was more critique-worth is beside the point.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:WeWork evicted a startup after it published a negative bl... by wpietri on Sunday July 24, 2016 @08:18PM (#12155677)

I wasn't confused by it. The lawsuit was mentioned as "for document theft" in the article. I thought he was clearly adding his interpretation of motive. Maybe it's just you?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:WeWork evicted a startup after it published a negative bl... by kafkaesq on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @03:41PM (#12168247)

To me it reads as spin, not simply "interpretation."

[ Parent | on HN ]