Ok self-appointed HN comment cop, maybe you could make a ruling for us on top-voted HN comments which consists of nothing more than a mindless, unsupported assertion that the Rolling Stone article author "routinely lies", followed by a comment from someone else whose deep contribution is that the author "writes from a script?"
I mean, with the quality and depth of those kinds of comments, why would anyone ever even think to speculate about motivation and/or character here?
The funny thing about this comment and the rest of your comments on this thread is that they're in militant support of demonizing other commenters because of where they've worked in the past.
But maybe you, alone among all the other (I suppose) Taibbi advocates on this thread, would like to engage directly with my argument about his financial reporting?
I mean, with the quality and depth of those kinds of comments, why would anyone ever even think to speculate about motivation and/or character here?