> "The best theory I have is that, two weeks earlier, I raised concerns about donating 10% of ad revenue to charity. Some management likes getting feedback, some doesn't."

How else could you possibly interpret this rationally in a conversation about being laid off?

>How else could you possibly interpret this rationally in a conversation about being laid off?

The way his comment actually reads is: "I really can't work out why I was let go. The only thing I have done out of the ordinary in the last few weeks was ..."

A bunch of ways. The point is you didn't present it as an interpretation; you presented it as something he physically, actually said.

Which, as you knew, it wasn't.

Eh? I literally said -> "The guy basically said "

http://www.italki.com/question/143633 "When we summarize something that somebody said, we use this expression. "

Eh. You have an interesting way of understanding English I've never encountered before.

You also fail to provide said intepretation/explanation/whatever you like to call it. So...ya.

The distinction lies in your use of quotation marks (rather than subordinate clauses). If you had just said:

The guy basically said he was laid off because I pissed off management with his feedback.

then it would have been perfectly clear that this was an interpretation of what happened, rather than a literal description of what happened.

I'm replying to myself since I don't feel like waiting and I'm not going to be on for awhile...

You basically started an argument on the internet over my use of "" to differentiate between his posts.

K. Glad we cleared that up and I don't really care anymore.

>How else could you possibly interpret this rationally in a conversation about being laid off?

I dunno, how about interpreting it as what it says instead of making up an evil motive? It says he wasn't sure why and his best guess was that.