I'll quote directly from the audio (https://christianselig.com/apollo-end/reddit-third-call-may-... starting around 2:18):

> Apollo dev: How did you take that, sorry? Could you elaborate?

> spez: Oh, like, cause you were like "hey, if you want this, if you want this to go away, like [unintelligeble]..."

> Apollo dev: Oh, I said if you want Apollo to go quiet, like I would say it's quite loud in terms of its API use..."

> spez: Oh, okay, got it. Got it, sorry. That's a complete misinterpretation on my part. I apologize immediately [...]

Would you expect spez to still consider it a threat given both the literal content of what he says, and the tone it was said in? I see no way your interpretation makes sense.

I read this very carefully several times, and there is context which you decided not to quote, what is your point?

Update on your updated comment: > and the tone it was said in? I see no way your interpretation makes sense.

Looks like we are again in disagreement about this.

Could you explicitly state the context you believe I decided not to quote? Timestamps are enough.

context was "joke" about $10m to go quiet.

So the part that spez was talking about misunderstanding, which he apologized for? The context you think I didn't include is the thing that spez is explicitly saying he didn't understand correctly?

> The context you think I didn't include is the thing that spez is explicitly saying he didn't understand correctly?

sorry, this doesn't make sense to me.

I quoted spez apologizing for misunderstanding something. You're saying I left that something out as context. Considering spez acknowledged his misunderstanding and apologized, it seems a bit ridiculous to expect the something he apologized for to "override" his apology, doesn't it?

> Considering spez acknowledged his misunderstanding and apologized, it seems a bit ridiculous

I answered this already, it could be sugarcoating. Sorry, this discussion is low quality to my taste and I have no interest in continuing. Good bye.