As Netscape discovered[1], there is no such thing as an internal list or e-mail[2]. People would be well advised not to believe in such things even if they are presented as such.

1) https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0O3ZRp... (cache version)

2) http://lilly.tumblr.com/post/11230723028/steve-jobs

By internal, I didn't mean he had any expectation of secure privacy, but that he was writing for a specific audience, and that what he wrote was essentially being taken out of context.

People are portraying it like he posted it on the cafeteria bulletin board. That was someone else's doing, trying (and succeeding) in punishing him.

> By internal, I meant a limited audience.

Well, It surely did not work out that way, and I stand by my caution to folks that however its defined (limited audience, private list, etc.) there will be someone to spread it beyond the original intended audience.

That matches what I've heard, but we don't know what his behavior was like in the office. I think GP's point is that this may have just been (one hell of a) final straw.

His previous behaviour is as irrelevant as the content of his post: he was given an expectation of safety to express his opinion and that trust was abused by multiple parties.

Is it? If he has a pattern of making statements deemed by HR demeaning to women (or whatever the problem was) as was told "don't keep doing that or else you're fired" this could easily be seen as violating that agreement.

Why don't you read it yourself and see what all the fuss was about.

https://medium.com/@Cernovich/full-james-damore-memo-uncenso...

Or maybe he was wearing a slutty dress.