It does sound dickish, but we're missing tone, body language, context, etc. It's possible those added up to something that could more accurately be transcribed

It does sound dickish, but we're missing tone, body language, context, etc. It's possible those added up to something that could more accurately be transcribed as, "Why did I allow you to stay here when I just said we needed someone there? OK, go now!" On the other hand, there's this alternate quote: 'Thirty-minutes in the meeting he chided Sabih Khan, the then operations executive, saying "Why are you still here?"' [1] But, the actual source is "an anecdote reported by CNN", which might be this quote: 'Thirty minutes into that meeting Cook looked at Sabih Khan, a key operations executive, and abruptly asked, without a trace of emotion, "Why are you still here?"' [2] So, was it emotionless or chiding? Merely abrupt or rebuking? I'm interested in this because it's a case study of problems with (modern?) journalism, where one journo gets an actual quote, boils it down to a paragraph, then everyone else has to mince that up into something interesting and not plagiarised, which continues ad nauseum (in this case becoming a legendary story about an exec, inviting embellishments) until hardly anything of the true meaning is left. I kinda wish the people who have no more actual information than an intelligent search-engine-user would get out of the way so the rest of us could just read the primary source. [1] http://s4.ibtimes.com/tim-cook-man-apple-ceo-steve-jobs-trusts-256039 http://s4.ibtimes.com/tim-cook-man-apple-ceo-steve-jobs-trus... [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20081206032107/http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/09/technology/cook_apple.fortune/index.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20081206032107/http://money.cnn....