Huh?

You're the one that said no comment was suspicious! I said something weaker than that, that it's not very suspicious.

I'm not the one that said a canary failing is a yes. I said it was significantly more suspicious than a no comment.

Yes, I was the one saying that _people_ consider it suspicious, but I'm also the one saying that as a company your only course of action is to not comment on legal matters unless legally compelled to. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. People (in aggregate) don't act rationally, so even if it's going to lose you some customers, no comment.

I won't argue with you there, sure.

But that doesn't explain your previous comment. Was the accusation about [[pretending that "no comment" means something it doesn't]] a misunderstanding of what I was saying? If not, what was it?