|
|
|
|
|
|
by jimkleiber
1667 days ago
|
|
|
I looked back at the original post to which pc replied and it seemed to have many accusations in it and I think pc did do what you're talking about, in a roundabout way by saying "I don’t think some of the claims in this comment are true or in good faith." I think, in a way, that's a counterattack on the other person's statements or intentions, yet kinda says he doesn't believe he had ill intent. I agree he didn't directly refute the ill intent on the ghosting/mining accusations, yet, I think he tried to cover some of them in the following: > (We obviously don’t control HN or YC or journalists. If or when my comments on HN are ever ranked highly, it’s because they’re upvoted. The internal claims about Stripe are also inconsistent with the data around things like retention. Etc.) > "I've never heard this directly before" would NOT be adequate. It comes across as a completely ridiculous reply that very obviously fails to deny what is clear to everyone to be the heart of the accusation: the ill intent. Which makes it hard to interpret an omission like that charitably. But what if he legitimately had never heard such an accusation before? What if no one had previously told him, "I think you ghosted me and I think you were mining me for info and pretending to acquire my company"? |
|
|
Or in other words... he didn't. Roundaboutness is literally how PR departments spin things to look like the exact opposite of the truth. "I don't think some of your claims are true" is not something that defends you when there are very strong, pointed accusations against you.
>> "I've never heard this directly before" would NOT be adequate.
> But what if he legitimately had never heard such an accusation before?
So? The reply would be inadequate just the same. I'm not saying he can't say that, I'm saying he can't say that and then leave it at that.
Btw I'm honestly tired of this back-and-forth at this point, so this'll be my last reply, sorry about that.