Originally Posted by
Gibsonsean
For clarity, by 'unqualified' i mean statements with with no acknowledgement of the basis for the rationale and the potential limitations of that basis. By 'uninformed' I mean statements whose basis is incorrect i.e. at odds with information which is known, or willfully partial or missing entirely, i.e. half assed data, or pulled out of a whole.
Only days ago, the inventor of Helix was classed as either utterly clueless or a liar, stated with poor rationlisation, no meaningful qualification and based on rubbish information. This is potentially damaging to the the target and to those who might form an opinion of that target based on what they read. Compared to an exuberant backer getting arguably carried away at the prospect of their bike finally being delivered, I don't think there is equivalence.
Some of the earlier statements verged on slander or libel (if not outright venturing into them). What was ironic is that the most vicious statements often came from those who did not back in Helix - why so invested? Sure we could all use a "public service reminder" now and then, but if anybody bought into KS without seriously considering that they might actually get nothing... well, that's too bad. That's the way it works: you invest your money, you take your chances. Buyer beware.
Now that the bike is in the wild... it's waiting game to see how the reviews will turn out, and how Helix positions itself for long term success.