So I woke up to find that part of one of my recent public conversations has been picked up by the press, and some of my personal conjecture has been taken as official statements. I’m lucky it hasn’t happened until now, but it was inevitable that the lines would be blurred. Problem is, this time, I think I helped blur them.
Looking at the way I phrased my points this morning, I wish I hadn’t said things that way, and of course, some of what I said led to other points that were left out of the reporting. But you can’t get the whole summary of a conversation in a headline, and I know that. If you’ll allow, I just want to make two points.
One, I like being honest about my opinions, and they are, in fact, that – my opinions. But I also understand how people will see anything I say and will assume it’s policy. For what it’s worth, that’s not always the case. I’m trying to be a human conduit TO the information, but I risk becoming a source OF it. I’ll be more clear from now on when I’m speaking off the top of my head, the way I was in that conversation, and when I am referencing official info. (And yes, this post is me talking.)
Two, in the conversation in question, I tried to break down points in that are in the legal documents in a friendly way, but I came off as callously twirling my moustache and looking like a jerk instead. I cringed when I read it the way other people read it. That was totally not my intent and I am legitimately sorry for the way it came across. For all our technology, we still don’t have a good way to show tone of voice online.
And really, I shouldn’t be saying anything about the lawsuit anyway. The documents are out there; they should be read directly.
That’s all. Thanks for listening.

