Autopilot and other Tesla info from Tesla's lawsuit against former employee

[AnxietyRanger]

I ask that you please show me the respect of not putting words in my mouth. I never said "the statement hyperbole is grounds to think Anderson/Aurora is looking guilty" as you claim.

To be clear, this is what I was responding to:

"Startling paranoia" is the motivation, plus and "unhealthy fear" of competition? When the attack is personal rather than dealing with the allegations it makes me suspicious.

The first part I described as hyperbole in the original statement, maybe I got that wrong, but I am not a native English speaker, so to be clear that is what I meant. And the latter sentence is where I think your message implied grounds of them looking guilty. Now, I did not mean to say you would say they are guilty, just that it might cause you to think they are looking guilty - that is how I simply paraphrased it making you suspicious. If it was imprecise, hopefully this corrects that. I have no reason to misquote you, I wanted to respond to your actual views and discuss them.

I argue when the context is a small startup responding in haste, you are getting suspicious (and posting said suspicion in the context of legal analysis that will further publicize and spread said suspicion) about an issue that in that context has numerous benign explanations, can be misleading.

I doubt the genuineness or truth of Tesla having a "startling paranoia and an unhealthy fear of competition." You can believe it but I am suspect of it. Tesla, after all, opened up its patents to competitors if used in good faith. I am not aware of any other company doing that.

I would argue patenst are completely irrelevant to the question of poaching. But more importantly: times are different. Many might argue Tesla has changed and turned more aggressive since those days, re: Countergate for example. The patents were many years ago when Tesla certainly looked like a completely different company.

Also, the fact that I am a lawyer has nothing to do with our debate. I have no more information on this case than you do. To suggest that I:

laced with your slight appeal to authority as a lawyer

is another place where you are putting words in my mouth. Please show where I made any reference to the fact that I am a lawyer in my posts in this thread? You can't. @3Victoria knows this from other threads but not this one. I never laced anything in this thread with the fact that I am a lawyer. It is not relevant.

I show you the respect of quoting you properly. I ask that you please do the same.

Well, in that vein, this is what I actually said in full:

I am against the suggestion, laced with your slight appeal to authority as a lawyer (others read it like that anyway, see @3Victoria)

Basically quoting and paraphrasing is hard. IMO this too changes the meaning of the sentence quite a bit when it is quoted in full, instead of partially. I stand by my opinion that it certainly looked like a professional opinion when you have made your profession clear and used it as a point in previous debates, so it carries some extra weight in these parts as @3Victoria's reaction points out.

But fair enough, if you did not mean to appeal to authority, so be it. However, just FYI, it can still look like that. Some extra responsibility there perhaps. As @3Victoria's reaction suggests, that extra weight behind your opinion can turn people against the defendant in this case even though - as you say - you don't know the particulars of this case either.