According to the author's version of events his colleagues were offended by a description that was inaccurate to point of falsified (again, according to the aut

According to the author's version of events his colleagues were offended by a description that was inaccurate to point of falsified (again, according to the author), and their outrage was conveyed by someone who may have been looking for excuses to get rid of him for years. Perhaps they would have been offended by his actual words, but it seems at least plausible that if they read and believed his version of events they would no longer be offended. It also seems potentially plausible that their outrage was exaggerated by the NYTimes lawyer.