if you say something's provably false but you don't prove or even allude to a reason why someone should believe you, um, it's not very convincing

That sounds like... they did extensive research and standard journalistic double-checking so it's probably correct?

The WSJ isn't some random blog. Regardless of what you think of their opinion pages, their reporting is generally factually legit.

So you seem to be suggesting that their story is, indeed, correct.

Good, then I also did "extensive research and standard journalistic double-checking" or whatever.

Fantastic! You interviewed dozens of people directly involved? And corroborated everything independently at least once?

Then please share your own version of events, we'd all love to read it! If you spent weeks doing all that research, I'm sure it was so others could learn?

?? that quote makes me think it's accurate, not inaccurate

Can you explain your pov in detail? I’m interested.

Sure, send me an email and I'll be glad to.

I wouldn't feel comfortable writing about it, it's not illegal but it just doesn't feel right.

Why wouldn't it feel right? What an odd thing to say.

From HN comment guidelines:

> The most important principle on HN, though, is to make thoughtful comments. Thoughtful in both senses: civil and substantial.

Your claim that this is fiction, without any evidence or "proof", as you put it, is neither substantial nor thoughtful.

I am genuinely curious as to why you would make a splash in the comment section with this and then not explain yourself.

You're willing to make provocative claims here in public, but only back them up privately?

Then please don't make provocative claims in public in the first place. It's just trolling then. As the saying goes, put up or shut up.