Ironic that you are accusing us of reading comprehension issues considering your link says the following:
While we obviously don’t have any insight into the company’s decision, there is a lot of speculation being thrown about online that the move to remove Sam Altman, which came just over a month after Annie Altman’s allegations garnered attention in October, may possibly have less to do with his business abilities snd more to do with personal controversies.
Your conclusion is based on nothing more than speculation, so you might want to work on your reading comprehension before going around accusing others of the same problem that you clearly are suffering from.
Lol I’m not rescuing anyone, just pointing out the factual innacuracies in what you are saying. I have shown you where your evidence did not say what you were implying, but please, show me where I’m wrong with evidence.
ETA: also, you’re wrongly assuming I wouldn’t want him to be fired for sexual assaulting his sister. I do want that, but at the current time, there is nothing other than speculation that would imply that is why he was fired, so I’ve downvoted you for spreading misinformation and for doubling down on your misinformation once that fact has been pointed out to you.
Now it seems you’re confused as to what I wanted evidence of. I didn’t imply you never said “probably.” I read that part, but you provided a link as evidence that it was “probably” why he was fired, and it turns out the “probably” is all your premature conclusion while your link is careful not to draw the same conclusion.
And FYI, calling anyone who disagrees with your premature conclusion a “sex assault sympathizer” is straight up slander and only further shows that you have a habit of jumping to conclusions prematurely without evidence, so congrats on weakening your own conclusion even more.
Ironic that you are accusing us of reading comprehension issues considering your link says the following:
Your conclusion is based on nothing more than speculation, so you might want to work on your reading comprehension before going around accusing others of the same problem that you clearly are suffering from.
Homie I’m not the one coming to the rescue of a dude that sexually assaulted his sister.
Lol I’m not rescuing anyone, just pointing out the factual innacuracies in what you are saying. I have shown you where your evidence did not say what you were implying, but please, show me where I’m wrong with evidence.
ETA: also, you’re wrongly assuming I wouldn’t want him to be fired for sexual assaulting his sister. I do want that, but at the current time, there is nothing other than speculation that would imply that is why he was fired, so I’ve downvoted you for spreading misinformation and for doubling down on your misinformation once that fact has been pointed out to you.
Ahem
Now go fuck yourself, sex assault sympathizer.
Now it seems you’re confused as to what I wanted evidence of. I didn’t imply you never said “probably.” I read that part, but you provided a link as evidence that it was “probably” why he was fired, and it turns out the “probably” is all your premature conclusion while your link is careful not to draw the same conclusion.
And FYI, calling anyone who disagrees with your premature conclusion a “sex assault sympathizer” is straight up slander and only further shows that you have a habit of jumping to conclusions prematurely without evidence, so congrats on weakening your own conclusion even more.
No, and no.
This is why you’re being downvoted, and then you decide to double-down by insulting people. I would say that reflects an ideological perspective.
deleted by creator