You might want to reread, nobody was arguing that.

> We can debate semantics but if you describe yourself with a job title attached to a company then I suggest that you have an association which looks rather like ... employment.

"Debating semantics" is arguing about which definition to use. There is no valid definition under which you can say that Troy is a Microsoft employee.

You can't say "I'm not wrong, You're just debating semantics", all you can say is "I was wrong because I was confused by a misleading title I wasn't familiar with."

cupofnotjoe pointed this out and got a bunch of responses from people with poor reading comprehension who entirely missed his point.

Edit: I use 'you' in the general sense here, not specifically the person I'm responding to.

> Its not semantics at all, you just are excusing your own misunderstanding. He didn't describe himself with a job title, and he even explicitly states directly after listing those awards, that he is not an employee of Microsoft.

Yes, I agree. (I believe you think I am arguing against this; for clarity, I am not).

> Extending your logic, I have a CCIE, so if I ever state I'm a CCIE, I'm an employee of Cisco? I have a masters degree by coursework from a university, so I I ever state I have an Msc, I'm an employee of the university? I have an electrical licences issued by EnergySafe Victoria, so if I say I'm an A-Grade Electrician, I'm an employee of EnergySafe Victoria?

I think these are poor examples and reinforce that the confusion was reasonable. That is the only point I've been arguing in this thread.