I swear just the other day, it was you, sharing a video of a disgruntled twitter employee, as though it had any value, and then spent message after message trying to sell it as having any value. I swear that was you.
What makes you think that employee was disgruntled?
So when he says there's "a lot more to this story." after being informed of the entire sexual misconduct story to be published by business insider you suspect that to mean he wanted to say more about the settlement/legal drama and actually the bit about the sexual misconduct wasn't up for contention...
This is not a quality argument you're making dowie, in fact it's terrible.
No it’s a terrible argument you’re making where you’ve interpreted that comment to be some sort of admission the incident took place rather than simply a comment that there is more to the story.
You’re adding in details that aren’t there (that’s your assumptions/projections you’re basing an argument on) and then claiming he’s changed direction by saying the accusations are a lie.
Assume, for the sake of argument, this was a disgruntled employee, who made up an accusation then got a settlement, can you not see that the statements that there is more to the story and that the claim is a lie aren’t mutually exclusive things. The contradiction you’re seeing is the result of your own assumption that the statement constituted an acknowledgment that an incident occurred when all that was referred to was the story.
That’s a bad argument because it rests entirely on your own assumption.
If you don’t agree then I guess we’ll have to just agree to disagree then unless anything new gets added here.