Re:Seattle C.E.O. Who Promised $70,000 Salaries Wins Suit Fi...
by wutbrodo on Monday July 11, 2016 @08:00PM
(#12075728)
> Yes, I did read the entire article and you could have made your point without having to insult me personally.
I didn't mean to "insult you personally": I did express that it seemed like you hadn't read the article but I tried to do so politely. The reason I assumed that it was likely you commented without reading the article is 1) it's hardly a rare behavior in Internet boards, HN included and 2) your comment pretty explicitly reads like someone who thinks that the lawsuit was about the pay raise, when none of the facts of the article support it (though the clickbait headline implies it).
> The following paragraph of the article hints strongly that the brother was upset by the 70k/year decision, and that it played some role in their conflict.
Given how incredibly unrelated the actual complaint in the suit is, it borders on conspiracy theory to assume that a fraudulent suit is being filed as a roundabout way to sue for the salary raise. Especially when the lawsuit would be purely vindictive, since even a legal victory wouldn't address the salary increase at all!! Just because the article is trying to grab clicks with a misleading headline and creating a weak "isn't this suspicious" justification for doing so[1] doesn't mean that I'd expect commenters here to blindly buy it. Thus, the most reasonable explanation for talking about something implied by the headline but completely unsupported in the article was that the headline was read and not the article.
At any rate, sorry for assuming that you didn't read the article, but frankly it seemed like the _less_ insulting assumption.
[1] "nudge nudge, hey he didn't like being kept out of the loop about the raise and he filed a not-remotely-related lawsuit soon after, something fishy is going on here...or at least something that gives us plausible deniability to misrepresent the story"
I didn't mean to "insult you personally": I did express that it seemed like you hadn't read the article but I tried to do so politely. The reason I assumed that it was likely you commented without reading the article is 1) it's hardly a rare behavior in Internet boards, HN included and 2) your comment pretty explicitly reads like someone who thinks that the lawsuit was about the pay raise, when none of the facts of the article support it (though the clickbait headline implies it).
> The following paragraph of the article hints strongly that the brother was upset by the 70k/year decision, and that it played some role in their conflict.
Given how incredibly unrelated the actual complaint in the suit is, it borders on conspiracy theory to assume that a fraudulent suit is being filed as a roundabout way to sue for the salary raise. Especially when the lawsuit would be purely vindictive, since even a legal victory wouldn't address the salary increase at all!! Just because the article is trying to grab clicks with a misleading headline and creating a weak "isn't this suspicious" justification for doing so[1] doesn't mean that I'd expect commenters here to blindly buy it. Thus, the most reasonable explanation for talking about something implied by the headline but completely unsupported in the article was that the headline was read and not the article.
At any rate, sorry for assuming that you didn't read the article, but frankly it seemed like the _less_ insulting assumption.
[1] "nudge nudge, hey he didn't like being kept out of the loop about the raise and he filed a not-remotely-related lawsuit soon after, something fishy is going on here...or at least something that gives us plausible deniability to misrepresent the story"