> What would you have them publish instead?

The statement that is published places blame, if not accusations of criminal behaviour, on their business partner.

IOW, they already overshared with the intent of damaging the reputation of their business partner.

In my mind, they are already behind; had they released the standard business line "Our relationship with $X has come to an end; we apologise for any inconvenience caused" I wouldn't be so quick to judge them.

But, now I *am judging them, because they clearly felt personally aggrieved by what happened, enough to imply the worst without actually coming out and saying what happened.

▲

behringer 14 hours ago | parent [-]

nobody wants corporate speak. They are saying they are cutting ties and it's not their fault. No harm in that if it's true.

▲

306bobby 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There certainly could be harm if it's false though, which is the whole point. And they did not give any information to affirm who's fault (if anyone) it was besides hearsay

	▲	behringer 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		that's not the point as far as I can tell. The parent was saying the remarks were oversharing, not false.

▲

lelanthran 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> No harm in that if it's true.

Same as saying "Behringer is a convicted paedophile": no harm if it's true, right?

	▲	behringer 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Are you saying they're lying? That's a different issue than what I understood him to mean "it's unprofessional". It's flat out illegal.