The article isn’t an attack, no, but the questionable line here is:
So it seems in order to save his site, Dragoneer had to sacrifice the convention.
I would categorize this as an assertion given the context of the article, not a speculation. Yes, “it seems...” makes it a weak assertion, but it’s essentially “this appears to be what happened.”
But , even setting that aside, the editorial addition is, as far as I can tell in its entirety: “Dragoneer has since denied this; see right [the sidebar]”, with a sidebar showing Dragoneer’s tweeted response. That’s it.
So, you know, it seems that you are wrong when you say this was “apologized for and corrected”. Maybe Sonious apologized on Twitter later rather than continuing to fight with Dragoneer over it, but if so, that apology hasn’t made it into this article; the tweets I saw from them had very much of an “it’s your fault for not providing more details about why FA:U closed, not my fault for making assumptions without checking” air.
The article isn’t an attack, no, but the questionable line here is:
I would categorize this as an assertion given the context of the article, not a speculation. Yes, “it seems...” makes it a weak assertion, but it’s essentially “this appears to be what happened.”
But , even setting that aside, the editorial addition is, as far as I can tell in its entirety: “Dragoneer has since denied this; see right [the sidebar]”, with a sidebar showing Dragoneer’s tweeted response. That’s it.
So, you know, it seems that you are wrong when you say this was “apologized for and corrected”. Maybe Sonious apologized on Twitter later rather than continuing to fight with Dragoneer over it, but if so, that apology hasn’t made it into this article; the tweets I saw from them had very much of an “it’s your fault for not providing more details about why FA:U closed, not my fault for making assumptions without checking” air.
— Chipotle