5 ms·
They're suing an employee for (alleged) theft of proprietary documents, obtained through using the credentials of another employee. Not for "talking to reporte
by kafkaesq 10y ago
They're suing an employee for (alleged) theft of proprietary documents, obtained through using the credentials of another employee. Not for "talking to reporters."
This is a pretty clear case of where there's smoke...
There's innuendo and hyperbole.
- wpietri 10y agoYou're confusing motivation with legal cause of action. Yes, the suit talks about alleged document theft. But Us0r is talking about their intent in pursuing the suit. If WeWork decided to look for a reason to sue a former employee who made them look bad in the press, they would hardly be the first. But exactly none of those suits will say so, because that suit won't get far at all.
- kafkaesq 10y agoBut Us0r is talking about their intent in pursuing the suit. Yeah, I got the part about WeWork's "intent" already and wasn't "confused" by it, as you so kindly suggest. My point is he's using manipulative language to get his point across, which I find distasteful.
- wpietri 10y agoI'm not saying you misunderstood; I couldn't know that. I'm saying that in your reply you muddled them. When you say "it is A, not B", you're suggesting that one excludes the other. That's not the case; they're different things. If you don't like his language, I'd suggest you critique the language instead of contradicting him on a point of analysis.
- kafkaesq 10y agoLook, it's the original commenter who used muddled (and misleading) language in the first place, not me. Whether their "analysis" or his "language" was more critique-worth is beside the point.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]