[switch]

No, it's not that.

It's your flawed assumption that everyone else is wrong and you're right.

Groupon may or may not be a viable business.

However, your assumption is guiding you and you haven't provided enough data or facts. Your opinion doesn't really matter or your annoyance that everyone is picking on poor Groupon.

There are a lot of red flags and you are avoiding mentioning them and not mentioning very much supporting data for your assumption.

We aren't here to listen to wild conjecture.

[ForrestN]

Well, in so far as I believe my argument, I guess I think others are wrong. But all of this is conjecture, that's what we're doing here, right? I could go back and cite a bunch of press releases, b that burden of proof isn't being applied to those who are making all of these claims about Groupon being a scam. Anyway I'm mostly disputing arguments rather than making positive claims.

[pbreit]

The post you are referring to has quite a few more solid points than most of what I read here. The fact is, the post was downvoted because some set of HNers both disagree that Groupon could be a viable business and feel that downvoting is the proper way to express disagreement in HN. It's completely lame.