You can argue that it hurts the flow of the comment, but I wouldn't act like a play has a huge plot hole because it had a gun that never got used. The comment said X, then it said Y, and those things don't conflict. "Which one is it?" doesn't make sense as a question.
> Bosses telling non-equity owning subordinates to work harder is hardly a phenomenon limited to Musk.
I don't see how this affects anything the GP said.
>You can argue that it hurts the flow of the comment, but I wouldn't act like a play has a huge plot hole because it had a gun that never got used. The comment said X, then it said Y, and those things don't conflict. "Which one is it?" doesn't make sense as a question.
It's called confirming what your opponent's argument is, so you're not arguing against a strawman. If you check how the OP actually replied, it seems like he entirely abandoned the "he kept it all for himself" objection.
> Bosses telling non-equity owning subordinates to work harder is hardly a phenomenon limited to Musk.
I don't see how this affects anything the GP said.