3 ms·

Bad title. As stated in the article, the employee was not fired, he's just an intern that left for 2 weeks before returning as a full-time. PR team reported (tr

Bad title. As stated in the article, the employee was not fired, he's just an intern that left for 2 weeks before returning as a full-time. PR team reported (truthfully) that the employee is no longer with the company, but the article seems to indicate that company still honored the full employment after.

slater 2y ago
That's the joke.
- monktastic1 2y ago
  I know that jokes are ruined by explaining them, but... could you explain the joke here? I also read it as misdirection.
  - Orangeair 2y ago
    The joke is that Microsoft was truthfully able to say "the individual responsible is no longer with the company", a phrase which normally implies that someone has been fired as a direct consequence of the event, without actually firing anyone. The statement was true because the individual responsible had finished their internship, and hadn't yet been brought back as a full-time employee.
    - coldtea 2y ago
      That's not "the" joke, or even a joke, that's just an amusing case of PR spin. The title doesn't say that employee was fired to refer to that "joke". It says it because it's more clickbaity this way.
      - bravetraveler 2y ago
        Agreed - if the other parties earnestly believed it... this reinforces the whole 'someone must be punished' mindset. I don't know. People can be mad.
      - OJFord 2y ago
        I agree about the title, but I do think it was absolutely a joke or case of diplomatic dexterity: > The manager of this component replied, completely truthfully, “the individual responsible for this regrettable act is no longer with the company.” Doesn't really sound like inadvertent or convenient HR/PR team handling, 'manager of this component'. How big would MS have been at the time (Windows 3.1, early 90s) anyway? Sounds very much to me like they thought it was hilarious, and were thrilled to be able to say they were no longer there on a technicality!
    - vsuperpower2021 2y ago
      [dead]
  - aaron695 2y ago
    [dead]

slater 2y ago

That's the joke.

monktastic1 2y ago
I know that jokes are ruined by explaining them, but... could you explain the joke here? I also read it as misdirection.
- Orangeair 2y ago
  The joke is that Microsoft was truthfully able to say "the individual responsible is no longer with the company", a phrase which normally implies that someone has been fired as a direct consequence of the event, without actually firing anyone. The statement was true because the individual responsible had finished their internship, and hadn't yet been brought back as a full-time employee.
  - coldtea 2y ago
    That's not "the" joke, or even a joke, that's just an amusing case of PR spin. The title doesn't say that employee was fired to refer to that "joke". It says it because it's more clickbaity this way.
    - bravetraveler 2y ago
      Agreed - if the other parties earnestly believed it... this reinforces the whole 'someone must be punished' mindset. I don't know. People can be mad.
    - OJFord 2y ago
      I agree about the title, but I do think it was absolutely a joke or case of diplomatic dexterity: > The manager of this component replied, completely truthfully, “the individual responsible for this regrettable act is no longer with the company.” Doesn't really sound like inadvertent or convenient HR/PR team handling, 'manager of this component'. How big would MS have been at the time (Windows 3.1, early 90s) anyway? Sounds very much to me like they thought it was hilarious, and were thrilled to be able to say they were no longer there on a technicality!
  - vsuperpower2021 2y ago
    [dead]
- aaron695 2y ago
  [dead]