Fact: you have sex with goats. It’s a fact because I said it is.
Do you now see why it’s important to have independent verification of facts, especially when the source might be biased? Do you get it now, goatfucker?
The article literally cites the report. The fact that people are too lazy to look it up before discarding the article is, frankly, disappointing. SCMP literally pulled public numbers from public reports and TOLD YOU EXACTLY WHERE THEY GOT THOSE NUMBERS.
Nobody in these comments has tried to disprove any statement that the article contains, because they can’t.
SCMP has been very reliable in this article (as I demonstrated in my other comment, where I follow their sources and find numbers that match them plus/minus forex differences). In the future, I’ll be citing this as evidence of SCMP’s factual reporting.
Edit: FWIW, I cited the relevant claim way up in the comment section, so you don’t even need to read the article to see it.
An unreliable source usually mixes facts with deception or manipulation. Showcasing a fact from an unreliable source does not make that source reliable or fact-based. The people here are not fooled. Please stop. It’s just weird at this point.
Only when quoted by an unreliable source with questionable intentions such as the Chinese propaganda machine you plucked it from. Context is important.
Just because it’s on the internet doesn’t make it “factual”. Get a clue.
You know exactly what everyone here is saying and you’re not discussing in good faith.
Your source is biased and lies all the time. What makes this time any different? Use multiple sources stating those same facts and then come back and present your findings.
Don’t get mad when you use a biased source and nobody believes you.
A factual story is unreliable because you don’t like it?
Fact: you have sex with goats. It’s a fact because I said it is.
Do you now see why it’s important to have independent verification of facts, especially when the source might be biased? Do you get it now, goatfucker?
Last I checked, there’s no SEC filing indicating that I have sex with goats. The evidence is literally public.
Now a link to THAT would be exactly what people are asking for.
The article literally cites the report. The fact that people are too lazy to look it up before discarding the article is, frankly, disappointing. SCMP literally pulled public numbers from public reports and TOLD YOU EXACTLY WHERE THEY GOT THOSE NUMBERS.
Nobody in these comments has tried to disprove any statement that the article contains, because they can’t.
No one can read the article because of the paywall. And the link to that report isn’t in the two paragraphs they let me read.
But by all means, go off.
archive.ph/(URL)
SCMP has been very reliable in this article (as I demonstrated in my other comment, where I follow their sources and find numbers that match them plus/minus forex differences). In the future, I’ll be citing this as evidence of SCMP’s factual reporting.
Edit: FWIW, I cited the relevant claim way up in the comment section, so you don’t even need to read the article to see it.
An unreliable source usually mixes facts with deception or manipulation. Showcasing a fact from an unreliable source does not make that source reliable or fact-based. The people here are not fooled. Please stop. It’s just weird at this point.
An SEC filing is an unreliable source?
Only when quoted by an unreliable source with questionable intentions such as the Chinese propaganda machine you plucked it from. Context is important.
Are you questioning the validity of the facts themselves? The basic math used to drive the conclusion?
Just because it’s on the internet doesn’t make it “factual”. Get a clue.
You know exactly what everyone here is saying and you’re not discussing in good faith.
Your source is biased and lies all the time. What makes this time any different? Use multiple sources stating those same facts and then come back and present your findings.
Don’t get mad when you use a biased source and nobody believes you.
Their source is literally public information. Is an SEC report somehow unreliable, too?