The original comment referenced “Matthew/Tamay/Ege”, yet you quoted Jaime to back up this claim.
But my claim is straightforwardly about the part where it’s not about “Matthew/Tamay/Ege”, but about the part where it says “Epoch”, for which the word of the director seems like the most relevant.
I agree that additionally we could also look at the Matthew/Tamay/Ege clause. I agree that you have been openly critical in many ways, and find your actions here less surprising.
I didn’t miss it. My point is that Epoch has a variety of different employees and internal views.
I don’t understand this sentence in that case:
But my claim is straightforwardly about the part where it’s not about “Matthew/Tamay/Ege”, but about the part where it says “Epoch”, for which the word of the director seems like the most relevant.
I agree that additionally we could also look at the Matthew/Tamay/Ege clause. I agree that you have been openly critical in many ways, and find your actions here less surprising.
I was pushing back against the ambiguous use of the word “they”. That’s all.
ETA: I edited the original comment to be more clear.
Ah, yeah, that makes sense. I’ll also edit my comment to make it clear I am talking about the “Epoch” clause, to reduce ambiguity there.