3 ms·
It was misleading because it was leading the reader to conclude that it was intentional when in fact it was A) an accident that B) was quickly rectified. That'
by wolfram74 6y ago
It was misleading because it was leading the reader to conclude that it was intentional when in fact it was A) an accident that B) was quickly rectified.
That's what misleading means, to lead amiss.
- s9w 6y agoI genuinely don't think that's a fair characterization. People watch those guys like hawks. I still remember the endless lies about the fish food with Abe, completely distorting reality. And this time it's a huge deal. At the time the things you listed were not known. And the words used were were tame for the magnitude of that event. I can't see any wrongdoing. If sides were switched, people would not frame it like this.