> For both, it seems like I read messages in random order and then have to guess at the general gist
I don't use Twitter so I don't know what it does, but if you look at the email, the oldest posts are quoted first, so you just read the message top to bottom like anything else.
And if that's too confusing, there are links to every message in the thread at the bottom.
"...and also that the FT allegations are significant" (my emphasis).
Original Tweet:
"3/But UK--&, I now believe, US--methods need to be explained by #Piketty, else looks pretty bad. Just not CONSEQUENTIAL 4 overall thesis" (again, my emphasis)
I don't mean to detract from the point, but this piece would be helped so much by properly fleshing it out into an article. presenting it as a sequence of 92 tweets is combining the worst of both worlds.
Second: in a follow up he seems to say (using google translate):
> It is EXACTLY what I meant: they charge the deaths to other pathologies present. I don't see many other possible explanations.
So he doesn't have proof or even a statistic to point to? He just doesn't see an alternative explanation? Is the newspaper he is working for yellow press?
From: Florent Crivello? @Altimor https://twitter.com/Altimor/status/873648344425299968
reply