undefined | Better HN

0 pointsWronnay2y ago0 comments

The Issue with these two explanations from the board is that this is normally nothing which would result into firing the CEO.

In my eyes these two explanations are simple errors which can occur to everybody and in a normal situation you would talk about these Issues and you could resolve them in 5min without firing anybody.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

kmlevitt2y ago· 2 in thread

I agree with you. But that leads me to believe that they did not, in fact, have a good reason to fire their CEO. I'll change my mind about that if or when they provide better reasons.

Look at all the speculation on here. There are dozens of different theories about why they did what they did running so rampant people are starting to accept each of them as fact, when in fact probably all of them are going to turn out to be wrong.

People need to take a step back and look at the available evidence. This report is the clearest indication we have gotten of their reasons, and they come from a reliable source. Why are we not taking them at their word?

katastofik2y ago

> Why are we not taking them at their word?

Ignoring the lack of credibility in the given explanations, people are, perhaps, also wary that taking boards/execs at their word hasn't always worked out so well in the past.

Until an explanation that at least passes the sniff test for truthiness comes out, people will keep speculating.

And so they should.

kmlevitt2y ago

Right, except most people here are proposing BETTER reasons for why they fired him. Which ignores that if any of these better reasons people are proposing were actually true, they would just state them themselves instead of using ones that sound like pitiful excuses.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse