I was paraphrasing: "Officially: no reason. And I get this; I vaguely know how CA employment law works and that you limit your liability by not stating a reason. It's also really hard to work through in your mind. The best theory I have is that, two weeks earlier, I raised concerns about donating 10% of ad revenue to charity. Some management likes getting feedback, some doesn't.

..."

When you make a statement like "Some management likes getting feedback, some doesn't." in relation to being laid off, you are implying it was retaliatory. I'm pretty sure Yishan saw it as that hence his reply.

That combined with Yishan's reply makes it LOOK more retaliatory.

You are welcome to your opinion. ;)

But anyone who responds to being called out publicly, isn't retaliating imo.

It's not being called out, it's the tone. The tone sounds almost like a playground spat. Which hints at it being personality conflict, rather than a performance thing.

> It's not being called out, it's the tone. The tone sounds almost like a playground spat. Which hints at it being personality conflict, rather than a performance thing.

I've taken that tone with people in this thread to point out how stupid I consider there demonstrably false absolute statements.

So...I think the issue here is some people are bothered by Yishan (obviously) and some people are not.

Tbh, given the only way a CEO can safely say "you failed to perform" in regards to an employee is if they have documented missed deadlines by that employee...I don't think your point of view is likely grounded in reality.

Most (sane & rational) people don't open themselves up to a lawsuit without being pretty sure they evidence to support their statements.

I have to agree with you. The fact that the CEO himself was so riled up about this is pretty strong evidence that there was a lot more to this story than a lack of productivity.

> "The best theory I have is that, two weeks earlier, I raised concerns about donating 10% of ad revenue to charity. Some management likes getting feedback, some doesn't."

How else could you possibly interpret this rationally in a conversation about being laid off?

>How else could you possibly interpret this rationally in a conversation about being laid off?

The way his comment actually reads is: "I really can't work out why I was let go. The only thing I have done out of the ordinary in the last few weeks was ..."

A bunch of ways. The point is you didn't present it as an interpretation; you presented it as something he physically, actually said.

Which, as you knew, it wasn't.

Eh? I literally said -> "The guy basically said "

http://www.italki.com/question/143633 "When we summarize something that somebody said, we use this expression. "

Eh. You have an interesting way of understanding English I've never encountered before.

You also fail to provide said intepretation/explanation/whatever you like to call it. So...ya.

The distinction lies in your use of quotation marks (rather than subordinate clauses). If you had just said:

The guy basically said he was laid off because I pissed off management with his feedback.

then it would have been perfectly clear that this was an interpretation of what happened, rather than a literal description of what happened.

>How else could you possibly interpret this rationally in a conversation about being laid off?

I dunno, how about interpreting it as what it says instead of making up an evil motive? It says he wasn't sure why and his best guess was that.