[irjustin]

> Any usage on your part is an investment in the company. Of course you would feel entitled to know why they are ceasing effective immediately

Going with the Steelman path - This is true if I sincerely believed in the company, likely promoted them to others, and was emotionally invested. I definitely would want one. As a shareholder, I would demand one.

Anyway, based on the OP's tone of this thread, I doubt they were emotionally invested let alone a paying customer - but assumptions.

[Dylan16807]

You sure didn't steelman the OP.

They said the explanation is suspicious. That doesn't mean they feel like they are personally owed an explanation.

[irjustin]

Was steelmanning what I quoted which was not the OP.

[Dylan16807]

Yes. Which is bad.

[irjustin]

Wait... Why?

[Dylan16807]

The bad part was not steelmanning the OP even a tiny bit, when you're fully familiar with the idea and expectation.

[irjustin]

Ah got it. You've got a weird requirement for steelman arguments.

[samhuk]

This best describes my feeling.

[jzb]

“Just because they left a comment saying the explanation was suspicious, nobody would reasonably infer they feel entitled to an explanation.”

Uh-huh

[Dylan16807]

What doesn't make sense about that?

Even if you don't owe me any explanation, if you freely give me a bad one I'm allowed to say there's something weird going on. Especially if you chose to make a fully public post about it.

Read the comment again. "perplexed" "It only communicates" "Am I reading too much into this" "curious". I don't see any implication of being owed more. It's a criticism that the post is not leaving the message that is intended.

It's not the same, but it reminds me of the quote: My "Not involved in human trafficking" T-shirt has people asking a lot of questions already answered by my shirt.