zlacker

Fair. I don't know why they wouldn't just come out and say that though, if that were the case. It would be seen as admirable, instead of snake-ish.

Instead of "Sam has been lying to us" it could have been "Sam had diverged too far from the original goal, when he did X."

>>robswc+(OP)
It's hard to say. Lots of things don't really make sense based on the information we have.

They could have meant that Sam had 'not been candid' about his alignment with commercial interests vs. the charter.

>>robswc+(OP)
that is what the press release says. they didn't go into specifics but it is clear that the conflict is in Comercialisation vs original purpose

>>cowl+QB
>that is what the press release says.

In the initial press release, they said Sam was a liar. Doing this without offering a hint of an example or actual specifics gave Sam the clear "win" in the court of public opinion.

IF they would have said "it is clear Sam and the board will never see eye to eye on alignment, etc. etc" they probably could have made it 50/50 or even favored.