zlacker

[parent] [thread] 5 comments
1. ergoco+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-11-19 14:32:14
The board can easily back up their public claim. They don't.

Even the email to their own employees says it is a irreconcilable difference. Nothing about lying.

I don't think it is reasonable to go with "we don't know". It is more like: "it is crucial to back up your claim. Still, you don't.".

replies(1): >>Keyfra+T31
◧
2. Keyfra+T31[view] [source] 2023-11-19 19:47:49
>>ergoco+(OP)
I don't disagree. It's just maybe they have something they haven't shared or maybe they don't. We don't know (yet).
replies(1): >>ergoco+5N1
◧◩
3. ergoco+5N1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-19 23:36:44
>>Keyfra+T31
The fact that they didn't follow up with evidence immediately shows that they are incompetent.

You don't just accuse someone of committing a heinous crime and stay silent. What is the detail?

replies(1): >>Keyfra+Q52
◧◩◪
4. Keyfra+Q52[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 01:34:07
>>ergoco+5N1
True, but are they obliged to provide all details to the public?
replies(1): >>ergoco+1y2
◧◩◪◨
5. ergoco+1y2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 05:29:17
>>Keyfra+Q52
No, but they are also not obliged to accuse Sam of lying either. But here we are.

You think accusing someone of lying in a public statement and don't follow up is competent?

replies(1): >>Keyfra+Aj3
◧◩◪◨⬒
6. Keyfra+Aj3[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-20 10:00:01
>>ergoco+1y2
I agree with you
[go to top]