> Most likely relying on second-hand info that was just wrong. I would have been happy to give him the benefit of the doubt and still would. To me it seems to

> Most likely relying on second-hand info that was just wrong. I would have been happy to give him the benefit of the doubt and still would. To me it seems to me he continually repeated these claims over the whole incident and ignored people who pointed out that what he was saying was obviously false. I only pointed to the most egregious example. To be clear, I'm not super worried about companies just screwing up, shit happens. However, I have a personal bias against dealing with people who are dishonest when that happens.