pull down to refresh
Neither of us know the author’s intent for certain unless you’re the author. I don’t think Zhao was material to his pov, so I couldn’t understand why he spent so much time on her, hence my “sport” comment. Meaning, I think their grand theory can be argued without going after Zhao. What facts do I need to support that?
It was a cold email unless you support the contrary with facts, some thread between her failed application and the email tying her to bitcoin.
Even within their frame
The frame, as I understood you, is that glozow was recruited by cold email, when people like Atack were already verifiably committed to Bitcoin.
This is totally my fault as I wasn't responding to what anon said directly. I meant the frame of the post in total, using anon's reply to continue my earlier comment.
The point of my comment was: if core is rotten, exploring relatively personal details/beliefs about Zhao, litigating/speculating about her character to the extent they did, was below the belt.
I don't have an opinion on cold vs hot email. I can see how that might point to favoritism or not, and is relevant, but I don't have counterfactuals so I don't have anything to say about that.
This article was in no way malicious or spiteful or emotional. The fact that she made an application a year earlier and by her own statements had "given up" on "Blockchain" strongly supports his statement that this was a cold email. A warm email would have had some preceding trail.
That trail may exist, and it may have been intentionally omitted for "sport" by the author, but frankly such an accusation screams emotional discomfort at the obvious conclusions from the facts available, and you should rather respond with an alternative set of facts that broaden the picture.