> You didn’t spot the relationship with the “no doesn’t mean no” stuff because as you said in the next sentence, you skipped it.
No, it was because I had not read the news about MrBeast having a sexual predator on his team. My interpretation of the earlier comment here was that this should have been a flag that the heading “no doesn’t mean no” should have been called out.
Without that knowledge of the current predator scandal, I don’t think I was wrong to skip that section when writing up my summary. I read that section and it didn’t make my “highlights” list for when I wrote about the document.
I’m being defensive here because it sounds like you are calling me out for something, but I’m not sure what that something is.
Fair, it wasn’t clear to me that you meant “skipped writing about it” - I thought you were just some rando that was commenting on something that they skipped over reading in the article (which I now understand you wrote). Sorry for the misunderstanding!
