4 ms·
> No offense, but dcurtis (at least claims) to have asked Mr X if it was ok to publish the email. Mr X agreed to allow it as long as his name was removed. How i
by apgwoz 17y ago
> No offense, but dcurtis (at least claims) to have asked Mr X if it was ok to publish the email. Mr X agreed to allow it as long as his name was removed. How is this now dcurtis's fault when Mr X consciously chose to allow the email to be published?
And at that, how is it dcurtis' fault that Mr. X (stupidly) used his company email address? That said, is it possible that dcurtis would have believe Mr. X if it wasn't from an aa.com address? I don't know the answer to that.
- pyre 17y ago> That said, is it possible that dcurtis would have believe Mr. X if it wasn't from an aa.com address? I don't know the answer to that. How does dcurtis's possible skepticism make him culpable for Mr. X's desire to 'reach out' (to the point that he was willing to use his company email to do so)? Mr. X is still the one making the choice to respond to dcurtis. He's still the one that decides the level of risk to his job that he's willing to take in his dealings with dcurtis. I don't see anything here that could be faulted on dcurtis other than his opinions and writing style.