Okay, you don’t like her. Cool, nobody’s required to but that’s a feeling, not data, and the accusation I responded to was a specific claim of dishonesty of the sort which, if true, could easily be supported by logic and evidence, not just emotion.
Wait what? I think she's doing a great job exposing crypto grifts/scams/hacks/etc. and I check her web3 feed at least once a week, but she does have a persona to uphold. Why would I pretend she's some platonic ideal of objectivity? For reasons mentioned, I do think this SuperPAC stuff is a bit reaching, but that's neither here nor there.
The claim that she is cherry picking data is quantifiable, not just a subjective assessment. If that’s true, especially given the public records available, it should be possible to back the claim up with examples.
