Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

He did disclose it.


sort by: page size:

What makes you think he would disclose that?

At least he was upfront about it by putting a disclosure in parenthesis.

He did disclose it, he just said he thought it was less relevant (maybe since it doesn't directly answer the question of the post he's replying to..)

The guy gives up additional disclosure information and you see that as an opportunity to make smartass comments


I would think the more important disclosure is if he didn't hold any.

They do disclose that now.

I think he would have disclosed that if he were unhappy about that, given the already very public nature of the post

I think it was more of a disclosure...

I think being asked to disclose at the time should tell him clearly what to do.

Yes, that's "full disclosure."

dishonesty averted! He added a disclosure. :-)

Disclosure does mean making things public...

The paperwork telling him to disclose was probabbly a big hint.

That's a question and a half. Since he reported it, it isn't hidden.

No, the two disclosures just happened to come at the same time.

At the least, disclosure.

In the comments, the author says it wasn't disclosed, so he won't disclose it. So, I have to wonder that this is something else?

I think they meant 'disclosure'

Hey, that's a disclosure.

disclosure.
next

Legal | privacy