Yokemate of Keyboards
Posts: 12079 from 2003/5/22
From: Germany
>> these increasing incidents of stating rumours as truths and on top of it
>> referencing sources that are either piss-taking or do not back up the
>> stated claims in any way make me question the author's motives.
> he seems to gather the info from new tweets and add it to the main body
> (with references when available).
Yes, just that, as stated, regarding the mentioned incidents, the references are either piss-taking or do not back up the stated claims in any way.
> Both the twitter and the main site contain the disclaimer " if not referenced it's personal opinion only!"
It's also only personal opinion if the reference is just a claim by an unnamed person that in itself lacks conclusive reference, or if the reference does not contain anything about the statement made. Even worse, the mere presence of a reference link can make an invalid statement appear valid. Only a minority of readers actually verify the reference, as it takes too much time and effort for most.
> I'm not sure I'd use the word "motive", since I've not seen him write about motive.
You don't need to write about motive to have one :-)
> "Slanted"? Sure, since we already have an admission of personal opinion here.
...unless accompanied by a bogus "reference", that is ;-)
> "why doesn't Hyperion address any of the points in contention?"
The 2 claims I'm referring to ("
lawsuit [...] funded [239] by [...] Robert Trevor Dickinson", "
Ben Hermans was "fired from Monard Law" [284]") are not really suited to be disproved by Hyperion. Besides, addressing any of the site's claims in an official statement could unnecessarily lend credit to the site in the eyes of Hyperion.
> "why don't Hyperion upload the documents that show their side of the story(filings)?"
>
I addressed that issue here> All I can tell you is that absolutely no one has written me to dispute what I wrote there.
> No one.
There was a
half-assed attempt at that.