I did not miss any point and that's an ad hominem charge. He misrepresented the facts and based an argument on that misrepresentation and I pointed that out.
"In retrospect, Google dismissed him because he was acting in a strange and destructive way."
No, they dismissed him because he had released Google internal product information, "In retrospect" or otherwise.
"In retrospect, Google dismissed him because he was acting in a strange and destructive way."
No, they dismissed him because he had released Google internal product information, "In retrospect" or otherwise.