You clearly need to work on erasing that bias you've previously spoken about. Meaning that in a real way. Fighting something for the sake of fighting it doesn't make it progressive or correct. Study, and then study some more. If you were in the telegram and interacted with the guy and read his chatter as well as this and you were actually not trying to argue for the sake of the word, I think you'd get my sentiment.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
My point about bias that I have spoken about before is about everyone's bias. If you are talking to someone else: they are biased. You are incredibly biased when it comes to EOS and Dan's projects. There is nothing wrong with that, you are supposed to be biased.
I have visited the telegram daily, Dan is sure an active man. Just becasue I am not as optimistic about EOS doesn't mean I don't get your sentiment. It just means I have different opinions regarding investing in early stage projects.
No, I am in fact NOT being biased. Whatsoever. I do not roll with bias in the investing game. I go with confirmed facts. Bias is a form of ignorance, and I'm not interested nor do I support remaining willfully ignorant while pretending that you aren't. I've vetted Dan's projects as well as MANY others to extreme levels. I stay involved and as informed as possible. I read everything that comes out and stay involved asking specific questions. I support the work and ideas behind EOS and Dan's past projects, yes, that is not blind bias. Why? Because the tech that enables their existence is superior to competition and they're actually working. Their team is also world class.
Criticism and inquiry is important. My qualm, again, was with the guy pretending to know the facts about something he's completely uninformed about. Crying scam about this project is a straight up travesty. That's just stupid, and I called it out for what it was, stupid misinformation. People should combat misinformation from people who claim to have information that they in face DO NOT HAVE.
Disagree with you on your the first point; different philosophy.
He had some information - asked the kinds of questions that should be asked based on the information that was at hand. Did he need to be as harsh and accusatory? No but that does not change my point.
I was trying to hear him out if you read out conversations on here and in Telegram. He claims to be citing material but refuses to point to it, just says "search for it." It didn't exist. He was pulling fabricated information out of thin air and no one was calling him out on it, so I did.
I don't care how harsh, etc someone is with their opinion, expressing themselves is their right, but it really leaves a bad taste in my mouth to see people pretend (outright lie) like the have some insider scoop when they don't. That's what this squabble was all about.