Sure, but Austin answered the fully general question of “how [have you] updated regarding Sam’s trustworthiness over the past few days[?]” with “I haven’t updated majorly negatively”, in a generic tone.
When I say “the evidence is about the filtering” I am saying “the thing that seems like the obvious update would be about would be the filtering, not what the filtering was hiding”.
I agree that one can keep a separate ledger, but to not make a major negative update on Sam in the aggregate based on the information that was released requires IMO either that one already knew about such things and had the information integrated (which would presumably result in a low opinion of Sam’s conduct) or a distinct lack of moral compass (or third, a positive update that happened to mostly cancel out the negative update, though I think it would be confusing to communicate that via saying “I [updated] only small amounts”).
I have some feeling that this back-and-forth is bad or a waste of something, but I just don’t see how
[Austin is saying that] it would be to Sam’s credit to learn that he forced employees to sign NDAs by straightforwardly lying to them about their legal obligations, using extremely adversarial time pressure tactics and making very intense but vague threats?
is at all a plausible interpretation, or anything like a necessary implication, of what Austin wrote.
Ah, sure. I didn’t meant to say much about implying a large positive update here, and mostly intended to say “are you saying it’s not to any kind of substantial discredit here?”.
Sure, but Austin answered the fully general question of “how [have you] updated regarding Sam’s trustworthiness over the past few days[?]” with “I haven’t updated majorly negatively”, in a generic tone.
When I say “the evidence is about the filtering” I am saying “the thing that seems like the obvious update would be about would be the filtering, not what the filtering was hiding”.
I agree that one can keep a separate ledger, but to not make a major negative update on Sam in the aggregate based on the information that was released requires IMO either that one already knew about such things and had the information integrated (which would presumably result in a low opinion of Sam’s conduct) or a distinct lack of moral compass (or third, a positive update that happened to mostly cancel out the negative update, though I think it would be confusing to communicate that via saying “I [updated] only small amounts”).
I have some feeling that this back-and-forth is bad or a waste of something, but I just don’t see how
is at all a plausible interpretation, or anything like a necessary implication, of what Austin wrote.
OK, perhaps you are saying what I would phrase as “are you saying it’s not greatly to Sam’s discredit if he forced employees to sign …?”.
Ah, sure. I didn’t meant to say much about implying a large positive update here, and mostly intended to say “are you saying it’s not to any kind of substantial discredit here?”.