I've seen that happen before, so I apologize for my insinuation if the quote was added between your reading and mine.
"the post provides no information whatsoever and crucially does not at any point indicate this was not the reason"
You can't assume that the firing was 100% due to the issue at hand, and I'm saying that I don't think it was 100%. Other people seem to be acting as if that's the only reason he was let go.
> You can't assume that the firing was 100% due to the issue at hand
Of course not (especially as his colleague was not fired) but in a blog post purporting to "provide some clarity" on "a number of inaccuracies being reported", considering the basic assumption that he was fired for it, you'd think that would be part of the clarity.
Instead the post weasels around with no specifics whatsoever, declaring "a thorough investigation" (of a few hours) but that not "all the factors" would be commented on (none whatsoever were commented on). They've also refused to publish (let alone respond) to a single comment so far.
I've seen that happen before, so I apologize for my insinuation if the quote was added between your reading and mine.
"the post provides no information whatsoever and crucially does not at any point indicate this was not the reason"
You can't assume that the firing was 100% due to the issue at hand, and I'm saying that I don't think it was 100%. Other people seem to be acting as if that's the only reason he was let go.