It’s not irrelevant if the author mentioned “classmates” several times to justify his viewpoint/emotions about the situation.

However, I was making 2 points in my original comment. The first was a critique about the author’s viewpoint that classmates did this to him. The second was about the intention of the author related to “good faith research”. Here’s why I did this. If you re-read the beginning of the author’s conclusion, he said this:

> Now let’s take a quick step back. (1) Getting a legal threat for our good-faith security research was incredibly stressful. (2) And the fact that it came from our classmates added insult to injury.

I added the numbers in () myself but you see there are 2 distinct ideas that the author is concluding here. Get it?

> Yet you seem comfortable calling them immoral

I never called anyone immoral or even implied it. If I thought so, then I would have just said it clearly.

I literally said that I didn’t know whether “research” was the main intention. I even said something to the affect of “whether it’s good or bad faith”.

I never placed any negative judgment on anyone. I even said “and there’s nothing wrong with having fun on a Friday night”. You seem to be misreading between the lines.

It’s interesting that you’re fixated on this but you haven’t commented on any of the other comments on this post that did call Fizz’s employees immoral. Someone even literally wrote a curse word (that starts with the letter “S”) to describe them.

If you remember, the original comment that I replied to said “Devil’s advocate”. That meant that this subthread was supposed to explore a viewpoint that others weren’t commenting as much.

If you had an issue with the original person who wrote the “Devil’s advocate” comment then you should reply to them. I only said that I “sort of” get his comment. I didn’t say I agree with everything he wrote.