It is not "wild speculative hyperbole" not to give the benefit of the doubt to companies that have repeatedly demonstrated that they are not entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
I’m not in favor of them lying to their customers by saying that they are protecting them, but I’m in favor of them resolving the discrepancy by protecting their customers rather than by retracting their claim.
You seem to believe I said something like "we should always believe the company no matter what the evidence says", but if you reread my comment you'll find that I didn't.
That's not the issue, the issue is whether assurances that were made to them, with or without some legal backing, could be trusted. Companies can be motivated by profit and still be honest.
I never mentioned such a need. What I mentioned was deception conducted by the company. Perhaps it is just misguided perception. People can't take a statement at face value, they must always make an assumption.
"My company bought their product" does not sound like material non-public information. It certainly doesn't sound material (and for this reason I also think it was sheer dumb luck that the investment paid off so handsomely, rather than intimate knowledge of the business).
The burden isn't on me to list every company that won't be affected by this. The burden is on the person making claim to provide evidence for their claim.
It doesn't support your point. It supports the original commenter's, who points out that not confirming internal titles is SOP at a bunch of companies.
reply