|
| ▲ | cm2012 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Didn't mean to imply is isn't in the article. I came to commentary after seeing the headline. Usually on HN there is a comment that shows why the headline is misleading in some way. |
| |
| ▲ | input_sh 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's an open secret that many people here don't read past the headline before commenting, but being open about it and proudly stating it is certainly... an interesting choice on your part. |
|
|
| ▲ | firesteelrain 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The point is the article is burying the lede rather than upfront framing it in a different manner. It is easy to miss. Edit: I am responding to the critique of a different person. I did read the article. |
| |
| ▲ | Klonoar 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | You can just admit you didn’t read the article. | | |
| ▲ | dh2022 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I proudly admit I do not read the Guardian on principle. | | |
| ▲ | parados 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Would you care to share those principles? | | |
| ▲ | dh2022 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Wrapping a tiny bit of truth in innuendoes and click-bait titles with anti-corporate bent. Like for example this article. Free press and all, I guess. | | |
| ▲ | parados 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Those are your principles? | | |
| ▲ | dh2022 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sorry, my post was confusing. Those are the principles of The Guardian. My principle is to avoid The Guardian. | | |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | firesteelrain 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I wasn’t the GP |
|
|
