4 ms·

But 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

But 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 ago
I'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 ago
  Look, 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.
  - wpietri 10y ago
    I wasn't confused by it. The lawsuit was mentioned as "for document theft" in the article. I thought he was clearly adding his interpretation of motive. Maybe it's just you?
    - kafkaesq 10y ago
      To me it reads as spin, not simply "interpretation."
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]