> “The next day,” Hank said, “Adria Richards called my company asking them to ask me to remove the portion of my apology that stated I lost my job as a result of her tweet."
Has Richards commented on this claim?
[0] http://www.esquire.co.uk/culture/books/7933/exclusive-extrac...
While I don't personally read "Hank"'s apology as "bad-faith", I can easily see how she might see it that way.
She can feel whatever she wants to about whether it was in good faith. But it feels a little underhanded to allegedly try to secretly get him to modify specific statements she doesn't like (possibly with intentional extra leverage by including the former employer.)
I say secretly, because another option would be including the request to modify his comment in her own comment[0], and removing it from her own if he did. Yes, that would look silly and be easily discovered, which is probably why she allegedly tried to do it non-publicly. (To her credit, contacting the employer may have been just because it was the only means she had to privately contact him.)
I wonder if she immediately saw the tidal wave coming for her when he posted he'd lost his job. If so, it's hard to blame her for trying almost anything to avoid it. Still, it fits into the original comment above, that this was a person deliberately trying to control a narrative to suit her agenda, that being transparent was less important.
Sorry, I thought it was implied by the context that I believe that would be an appropriate way of responding to a "bad faith" public apology.
> Still, it fits into the original comment above
Sure, it fits. But there are plenty of other interpretations that fit the information. I'd propose that the reason this narrative is winning is that it's the one that challenges people the least, not because it's the one that fits the facts the best.
I agree there are multiple interpretations, mitigating factors, biased accounts, etc. I've already "picked sides" and I doubt much would change that. I don't know that there really is a way to "fit the facts", because all the "facts" we have are colored by two emotionally invested adversaries, probably both speaking from a calculated PR mindset. At this point they're both also speaking through journalists, who may be adding their own spin.