BTW I agree with your overall sentiment. Sorry if I was too obnoxious with my post. Sometimes I overthink things (such as with the rest of this comment).
On your comment:
> > She only pauses in her work to run — seven miles a day.
> -- Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen, yes that Andreessen, writing in the New York Times Magazine about Visionary Tech Entrepreneurs with, um, no conflict of interest whatsoever I'm sure.
> Turns out Palantir's Alex Karp was also "harnessing goodness through technology." No idea how she missed Adam Neumann.
My issue is only with the first two lines, therein I can only discern one meaningful interpretation given the context.
1. You begin with a puffy quote from the article about Elizabeth Holmes
2. You name the author and publisher
3. You commented that she was writing "with, um, no conflict of interest whatsoever I'm sure" -- which is most likely sarcasm and that you suggest the opposite is true.
Therein is a claim (or at least a stated belief): that the author had a conflict of interest when writing about Elizabeth Holmes.
The nature of the conflict wasn’t clear. I looked it up (and later posted an article which asserted such a conflict) but didn’t find any clear connections between the Andreessens and Holmes/Theranos specifically.
In your #3 you seem to have overlooked the phrase “about Visionary Tech Entrepreneurs,” which is what the eye-roll about conflict of interest pertains to.
I get what you misunderstood and I think I now get why, but I disagree that it’s what the “verbal eye roll” (love that phrase from another commenter) is actually doing on the, er, page. Guess we can summon the English teachers now, but I’m sticking to my style. Thanks for taking the time to explain.
BTW I agree with your overall sentiment. Sorry if I was too obnoxious with my post. Sometimes I overthink things (such as with the rest of this comment).
On your comment:
> > She only pauses in her work to run — seven miles a day.
> -- Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen, yes that Andreessen, writing in the New York Times Magazine about Visionary Tech Entrepreneurs with, um, no conflict of interest whatsoever I'm sure.
> Turns out Palantir's Alex Karp was also "harnessing goodness through technology." No idea how she missed Adam Neumann.
> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/12/t-magazine/el...
My issue is only with the first two lines, therein I can only discern one meaningful interpretation given the context.
1. You begin with a puffy quote from the article about Elizabeth Holmes
2. You name the author and publisher
3. You commented that she was writing "with, um, no conflict of interest whatsoever I'm sure" -- which is most likely sarcasm and that you suggest the opposite is true.
Therein is a claim (or at least a stated belief): that the author had a conflict of interest when writing about Elizabeth Holmes.
The nature of the conflict wasn’t clear. I looked it up (and later posted an article which asserted such a conflict) but didn’t find any clear connections between the Andreessens and Holmes/Theranos specifically.