Okay. So spez acknowledged in the call that it wasn't a threat, but he felt threatened, so it's okay for him to tell everyone the Apollo dev threatened him?
> So spez acknowledged in the call that it wasn't a threat
its regular bs sugar coating, like you know someone is cheating, and he knows he is cheating but doesn't admit, but you don't have proof and you say "oh it was miscommunication" for the sake of continuing cooperation.
Why do you think this is the case? The audio by the Apollo dev doesn't support this, and spez has not published anything that would prove there was a threat. The audio doesn't sound like what you're describing, it sounds like what the Apollo dev is describing.
> Apollo dev: How did you take that, sorry? Could you elaborate?
> spez: Oh, like, cause you were like "hey, if you want this, if you want this to go away, like [unintelligeble]..."
> Apollo dev: Oh, I said if you want Apollo to go quiet, like I would say it's quite loud in terms of its API use..."
> spez: Oh, okay, got it. Got it, sorry. That's a complete misinterpretation on my part. I apologize immediately [...]
Would you expect spez to still consider it a threat given both the literal content of what he says, and the tone it was said in? I see no way your interpretation makes sense.
So the part that spez was talking about misunderstanding, which he apologized for? The context you think I didn't include is the thing that spez is explicitly saying he didn't understand correctly?
I quoted spez apologizing for misunderstanding something. You're saying I left that something out as context. Considering spez acknowledged his misunderstanding and apologized, it seems a bit ridiculous to expect the something he apologized for to "override" his apology, doesn't it?
