Originally posted by Longhornfan1024
That isn't being paranoid. It's simply a logical conclusion based upon my knowledge of the facts of the situation. As I said, if there's a confidentiality agreement in place, things change. But that doesn't seem to be the case. What seems to be the case is that they are trying to shut down the flow of information from a former employee by threatening litigation even if that litigation is doomed to fail.
But you can't make a logical conclusion with just one side of the story. Using the same perspective, one could assume that the former employee has a gambling problem based on the number of times he mentioned it in his posts.
That isn't being paranoid. It's simply a logical conclusion based upon my knowledge of the facts of the situation. As I said, if there's a confidentiality agreement in place, things change. But that doesn't seem to be the case. What seems to be the case is that they are trying to shut down the flow of information from a former employee by threatening litigation even if that litigation is doomed to fail.
But you can't make a logical conclusion with just one side of the story. Using the same perspective, one could assume that the former employee has a gambling problem based on the number of times he mentioned it in his posts.






























