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?”.
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?”.