https://twitter.com/frankieterrier
Quote
For those of you interested I will be posting a statement on thur re #bitcoin and press reports and #joelewis
Topic: 2013-08-04 WSJ: Famed Trader Joe Lewis Backs Bitcoin (hoax) - page 3. (Read 15520 times)
I think he knows that I know what he was hoping no one else would ever know, you know?
https://twitter.com/frankieterrier
https://twitter.com/frankieterrier
Here are the screenshots before he deleted posts on his current account: https://twitter.com/frankieterrier
Very good detective work!
Though this only shows that he talked about mining, but it's not really a clue that he was directly involved in creating false news.
If I could only find a Bitcoiner that vacations in the Bahamas and deals in seeds like Frankie Terrier does, with both living in the same mainly French speaking country that's not France, then I may be one step closer in solving this mystery.
But what are the odds of that happening?
The icing on the cake would be if that mystical person posted on this forum at the same exact time as he posted on Twitter.
BTW, I've officially put more time in this than the two seasoned reporters, one of which is the editor, did in the WSJ article that's no longer available--and they were paid for their efforts, of which I had to pay to not only read it, but to no longer be able to read it. Now that's value!
Here are the screenshots before he deleted posts on his current account: https://twitter.com/frankieterrier
Very good detective work!
Though this only shows that he talked about mining, but it's not really a clue that he was directly involved in creating false news.
Diggin' a little deeper! https://twitter.com/MoAzeel
Mind writing a TLDR. It's late and my brain doesn't parse what's your point.
That Frankie purposely changed his name to Andrew, and that this ruse was planned in early July as just now shown above.
Screenshots and links and quotes and stuff …
Mind writing a TLDR. It's late and my brain doesn't parse what's your point.
That Frankie purposely changed his name to Andrew, and that this ruse was planned in early July as just now shown above.
Screenshots and links and quotes and stuff …
Mind writing a TLDR. It's late and my brain doesn't parse what's your point.
So you're saying this is pro marketing at work? interesting.
Take a look at this and compare to current account while I take and crop screenshots: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:eopV5NmMVGkJ:twitbridge.com/frankieterrier+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Note the tweets that are no longer available.
business is business i suppose. interesting indeed in how far someone will go to get their company in the spotlight
Ironically, he mentions starting a charity, which you I are part of (going by your sig).
Here are the screenshots before he deleted posts on his current account: https://twitter.com/frankieterrier
So you're saying this is pro marketing at work? interesting.
Take a look at this and compare to current account while I take and crop screenshots: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:eopV5NmMVGkJ:twitbridge.com/frankieterrier+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Note the tweets that are no longer available.
business is business i suppose. interesting indeed in how far someone will go to get their company in the spotlight
So you're saying this is pro marketing at work? interesting.
Take a look at this and compare to current account while I take and crop screenshots: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:eopV5NmMVGkJ:twitbridge.com/frankieterrier+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Note the tweets that are no longer available.
So you're saying this is pro marketing at work? interesting if so
I found the following as soon as the story broke but got sidetracked.
Current account.
https://twitter.com/frankieterrier
This was the main reason why I felt it was a scam from the get-go, but failed to present it because I got caught up in a parallel dialog.
Current account.
Quote
This is Google's cache of https://twitter.com/frankieterrier/status/295140622619246592. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on May 14, 2013 23:45:06 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more
Tip: To quickly find your search term on this page, press Ctrl+F or ⌘-F (Mac) and use the find bar.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tJ8_yLQpPXIJ:https://twitter.com/frankieterrier/status/295140622619246592+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=usTip: To quickly find your search term on this page, press Ctrl+F or ⌘-F (Mac) and use the find bar.
https://twitter.com/frankieterrier
Quote
Andrew Laurus
@frankieterrier
Marketing MA, LBS. ex. Senior Bond Manager (Sales) @ Lehman. Emerging Markets Manager for Private equity Fund. (Taking time off for Bitcoin Mining project)
Zurich/London
@frankieterrier
Marketing MA, LBS. ex. Senior Bond Manager (Sales) @ Lehman. Emerging Markets Manager for Private equity Fund. (Taking time off for Bitcoin Mining project)
Zurich/London
Quote
This is Google's cache of http://twittercounter.com/frankieterrier. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Jun 16, 2013 20:44:38 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more
Tip: To quickly find your search term on this page, press Ctrl+F or ⌘-F (Mac) and use the find bar.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tSrJq2GcAo4J:twittercounter.com/frankieterrier+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=usTip: To quickly find your search term on this page, press Ctrl+F or ⌘-F (Mac) and use the find bar.
Quote
@frankieterrier Update
Marketing MA, LSB. ex. Senior Bond Manager (Sales) @ Lehman. Currently seeking small business opportunity.
Marketing MA, LSB. ex. Senior Bond Manager (Sales) @ Lehman. Currently seeking small business opportunity.
This was the main reason why I felt it was a scam from the get-go, but failed to present it because I got caught up in a parallel dialog.
I am definitely surprised that the WSJ would run a story like this without a thorough fact-checking, but it sounds like that's what happened. I would have expected the reporter to at least check with multiple sources.
right?? it makes me so angry
I am definitely surprised that the WSJ would run a story like this without a thorough fact-checking, but it sounds like that's what happened. I would have expected the reporter to at least check with multiple sources.
WSJ fucked up by not fact checking from a primary source the stuff their hires wrote.
Exactly. If you put your name on it, you are vouching for it. They did and the story was bogus.
Hate to say "I told you so" but...oh no wait...I don't hate it at all. It's incredible the level of faith you people have in old media. Even now, you people are posting here with notions like "Oh, but this is the media. They would never just publish on rumour right? There has to be something more to this!" Unfortunately, when you want to be the first to press, you will publish on rumour and yes, journalists do this a lot more often than the public realizes.
People who posted that someone would lose their job over this and that the story must have been true because no one would risk their job like that...also getting it wrong. There may be a meeting and someone may be scolded but this isn't like reporting the wrong sex of the royal baby; this is a story on bitcoin rumours. A story with niche appeal. In other words, no biggy. Unfortunate, undesired and unprofessional sure but also unsubstantial in its effect on general credibility.
Seriously, why the hell do some of you think the mainstream media prints gospel? If it's "because they're the established media" then you should give your head a shake and think a little more critically.
People who posted that someone would lose their job over this and that the story must have been true because no one would risk their job like that...also getting it wrong. There may be a meeting and someone may be scolded but this isn't like reporting the wrong sex of the royal baby; this is a story on bitcoin rumours. A story with niche appeal. In other words, no biggy. Unfortunate, undesired and unprofessional sure but also unsubstantial in its effect on general credibility.
Seriously, why the hell do some of you think the mainstream media prints gospel? If it's "because they're the established media" then you should give your head a shake and think a little more critically.
+1
And not the WSJ fucked up, but Bitcoin Examiner. But what is very more interesting: Bitcoin Examiner gained such a high level of credibility till know, that this happened.
WSJ fucked up by not fact checking from a primary source the stuff their hires wrote.
Hate to say "I told you so" but...oh no wait...I don't hate it at all. It's incredible the level of faith you people have in old media. Even now, you people are posting here with notions like "Oh, but this is the media. They would never just publish on rumour right? There has to be something more to this!" Unfortunately, when you want to be the first to press, you will publish on rumour and yes, journalists do this a lot more often than the public realizes.
People who posted that someone would lose their job over this and that the story must have been true because no one would risk their job like that...also getting it wrong. There may be a meeting and someone may be scolded but this isn't like reporting the wrong sex of the royal baby; this is a story on bitcoin rumours. A story with niche appeal. In other words, no biggy. Unfortunate, undesired and unprofessional sure but also unsubstantial in its effect on general credibility.
Seriously, why the hell do some of you think the mainstream media prints gospel? If it's "because they're the established media" then you should give your head a shake and think a little more critically.
People who posted that someone would lose their job over this and that the story must have been true because no one would risk their job like that...also getting it wrong. There may be a meeting and someone may be scolded but this isn't like reporting the wrong sex of the royal baby; this is a story on bitcoin rumours. A story with niche appeal. In other words, no biggy. Unfortunate, undesired and unprofessional sure but also unsubstantial in its effect on general credibility.
Seriously, why the hell do some of you think the mainstream media prints gospel? If it's "because they're the established media" then you should give your head a shake and think a little more critically.
+1
And not the WSJ fucked up, but Bitcoin Examiner. But what is very more interesting: Bitcoin Examiner gained such a high level of credibility till know, that this happened.
Interesting, because the author's (Harriet Agnew) tweet is still up:
https://twitter.com/HarrietAgnew
https://twitter.com/HarrietAgnew
Here's a (paywall free) article about this isn't true: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/private-investor-and-trader-joe-lewis-not-backing-bitcoin-ventures-2013-08-05
Quote
"I have no investments whatsoever in any Bitcoin ventures," said Lewis.
Too bad for him, he should very well consider it more closely now.
Here's a (paywall free) article about this isn't true: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/private-investor-and-trader-joe-lewis-not-backing-bitcoin-ventures-2013-08-05
lol I just made this
Nice. Can you remake it with 'USE BITCOIN' instead? I think that would be a bit better.
at least it is PRESS for bitcoin, so i like it
Jump to: