3 ms·
> it was an off-the-cuff remark There's no such thing without some form of prior agreement that it's off the record. If you're hanging out with family, it's p
by drivingmenuts 12y ago
> it was an off-the-cuff remark
There's no such thing without some form of prior agreement that it's off the record.
If you're hanging out with family, it's probably off-the-record, even if they're reporters. If you're hanging out with friends, it's likely but not guaranteed off-the-record, even if they're reporters.
If you're in front of reporters that don't have specified ground-rules, it's on the record. It has been established time and again that if it's not specified off the record, then it's on the record.
Michael called the subject reporter and asked for an off-the-record conversation, which she refused to grant, and he hung up. Clearly he knows the difference.
He wrote an apologetic email later, knowing full well we're now in a time where an ostensibly private email can be made public by the recipient and did not ask for any special status.
It's not like he doesn't know the difference between on-the-record and off-the-record.
So, why does he get a pass on an unbelievably stupid statement?
- meepmorp 12y ago> Why should this guy get a pass? What's the guideline? Many HNers like Uber and identify with its leaders because it's a successful startup. Therefore, they want to give him a pass.
- downandout 12y agoHe wrote an apologetic email later, knowing full well we're now in a time where an ostensibly private email can be made public by the recipient and did not ask for any special status. His email (which I did not read until you mentioned it) essentially said that he was just venting, and that is how myself and any other reasonable person would have interpreted it even before reading his email. Whether or not it was meant to be off-the-record is of no consequence here. It's the interpretation that is absurd and sensationalist.