| >This is why context, as OP mentioned, is important. But I agreed with the OP about context being important. So why are you telling me this? The context, as the article mentioned, is that the screenshot is being used as evidence against him in a lawsuit. He is said to have had several of these "ownership" relationships. And you seem to be claiming that not only was a screenshot taken, but then someone came after the fact with photoshop and altered it to remove sentences from it, before submitting it as evidence. ================ Ex-Wife: I'm suing Andy Rubin, here's an email he wrote. Judge: Why is this stuff blacked out? Ex-Wife: (makes up excuse) It mentions proprietary information. Judge: OK, well just show me the original, and we can keep it out of the record, and I'll decide whether this thing is pertinent. Ex-Wife: OK, here is the original. Judge: That is not proprietary information. It doesn't need to be covered. Ex-Wife: But covering it up makes my case stronger because it makes him look like a creepy jerk. Judge: GTFO ================ You really think this is what is going on? Seems like quite a stretch to me. |