I am confused how to square your claim of requesting extra time for incontrovertible proof, with Ben’s claim that he had a 3 hour call with you and sent the summary to Emerson, who then replied “good summary!”
Was Emerson’s full reply something like, “Good summary! We have incontrovertible proof disproving the claims made against us, please allow us one week to provide it?”
Yes, Ben took Emerson’s full email out of context, implying that Emerson was fully satisfied when in actuality, Emerson was saying, no, there is more to discuss—so much that we’d need a week to organize it.
He got multiple extremely key things wrong in that summary and was also missing key points we discussed on the call, but we figured there would be no reason he wouldn’t give us a week to clear everything up. Especially since he had been working on it for months.
(Just for the record, I would have probably also walked away from this email interaction thinking that the summary did not “get multiple extremely key things wrong”, according to you.
I feel kind of bad about summarizing it as just “good summary” without the “some points still require clarification” bit, but I do think that if you intended to communicate that the summary had major issues, you did fail at that, and indeed, it really seems to me like you said something that directly contradicted that)
We were very clear that we felt there were still major issues to address. Here’s another email in the thread a day later:
We also clearly told Ben and Robert in the call many times that there is a lot more to the story, and we have many more examples to share. This is why we suggested writing everything up, to be more precise and not say anything that was factually untrue. Since our former employees’ reputations are on the line as well, it makes sense to try to be very deliberate.
It’s possible there was a miscommunication between you and Ben around how strongly we communicated the fact that there was a lot more here.
Wait, just so I understand, what I thought happened was that Ben sent you the summary before a call, to which you sent the first email (saying “good summary”).
Then Ben said that he planned to publish this whole post and shared you on a draft, at which point you sent the email screenshotted in your most recent reply. They are responding to totally different pieces of text.
I absolutely agree that you clearly communicated that you think the full post is full of inaccuracies, but we were talking about whether the specific summary that Ben shared with you first, which is now included in this post as the “Paraphrasing Nonlinear” section, was something you communicated was inaccurate, which does not seem true to me according to the emails you shared here.
Honestly, one of the reasons I don’t find the Nonlinear narrative credible is the absolute 100% denial of any wrongdoing, a 0% reflection. Clearly, Ben really looked into this and has various accounts from multiple people or really questionable behavior, that seems very credible and to come against all of it with such force and conviction is a tactic of people who want to deny and distort the truth.
To be clear—I think Nonlinear may honestly feel wronged here and in their story, they are the victim. I’m not necessarily saying that they are purposefully lying about this—they may believe what they are saying/describing.
I am confused how to square your claim of requesting extra time for incontrovertible proof, with Ben’s claim that he had a 3 hour call with you and sent the summary to Emerson, who then replied “good summary!”
Was Emerson’s full reply something like, “Good summary! We have incontrovertible proof disproving the claims made against us, please allow us one week to provide it?”
Yes, Ben took Emerson’s full email out of context, implying that Emerson was fully satisfied when in actuality, Emerson was saying, no, there is more to discuss—so much that we’d need a week to organize it.
He got multiple extremely key things wrong in that summary and was also missing key points we discussed on the call, but we figured there would be no reason he wouldn’t give us a week to clear everything up. Especially since he had been working on it for months.
(Just for the record, I would have probably also walked away from this email interaction thinking that the summary did not “get multiple extremely key things wrong”, according to you.
I feel kind of bad about summarizing it as just “good summary” without the “some points still require clarification” bit, but I do think that if you intended to communicate that the summary had major issues, you did fail at that, and indeed, it really seems to me like you said something that directly contradicted that)
We were very clear that we felt there were still major issues to address. Here’s another email in the thread a day later:
We also clearly told Ben and Robert in the call many times that there is a lot more to the story, and we have many more examples to share. This is why we suggested writing everything up, to be more precise and not say anything that was factually untrue. Since our former employees’ reputations are on the line as well, it makes sense to try to be very deliberate.
It’s possible there was a miscommunication between you and Ben around how strongly we communicated the fact that there was a lot more here.
Wait, just so I understand, what I thought happened was that Ben sent you the summary before a call, to which you sent the first email (saying “good summary”).
Then Ben said that he planned to publish this whole post and shared you on a draft, at which point you sent the email screenshotted in your most recent reply. They are responding to totally different pieces of text.
I absolutely agree that you clearly communicated that you think the full post is full of inaccuracies, but we were talking about whether the specific summary that Ben shared with you first, which is now included in this post as the “Paraphrasing Nonlinear” section, was something you communicated was inaccurate, which does not seem true to me according to the emails you shared here.
Honestly, one of the reasons I don’t find the Nonlinear narrative credible is the absolute 100% denial of any wrongdoing, a 0% reflection. Clearly, Ben really looked into this and has various accounts from multiple people or really questionable behavior, that seems very credible and to come against all of it with such force and conviction is a tactic of people who want to deny and distort the truth.
To be clear—I think Nonlinear may honestly feel wronged here and in their story, they are the victim. I’m not necessarily saying that they are purposefully lying about this—they may believe what they are saying/describing.