4 ms·
>It was purely evasive. Half of what she wrote was statements that she can't answer that, can't speculate, doesn't know, or her lawyers advised her not to answe
by NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
>It was purely evasive. Half of what she wrote was statements that she can't answer that, can't speculate, doesn't know, or her lawyers advised her not to answer.
To be clear: if you don't know the answer, it's not evasive to say "I cannot answer that" or "I don't know the answer" or "giving an answer would be speculation on my part".
- KingOfCoders 4y agoYes but the OP was "I did and don’t feel like Rachel’s responses were sufficiently considered" - and it's hard to consider answers which are "I can't answer".
- dcow 4y agoThat's exactly my point. People asking the questions are awfully entitled to answers that fit their narrative or expectations of the events. Saying "that would be speculation and I'm not going to engage in speculation" is a direct answer, and a rather mature one at that. Nobody is entitled to somebody else's speculation. But in this thread it seems that answer wasn't appropriate. Again, my point is that Rachel did answer but everyone immediately dismissed her answers and her being passive aggressive when in reality she seemed to be acting in good faith and divulging as much as she could responsibly and factually.
- 1123581321 4y agoShe was evasive and dishonest, and omitted answers to the real questions that needed to be answered, and tried to cover for that by inventing concern for responsible disclosure inappropriate for the forum.
- zchrykng 4y agoAnyone responsible for running a CA with a root cert should be willing to answer any reasonable question that the public can dream up. The fact that they were unwilling to provide basic information is a huge red flag.