I'll repeat what I said in a related thread: I'm not saying it makes him an employee. I'm saying those are bad attempts to argue the title isn't confusing.
I'm not sure what you're rebutting. This is roughly the thread as I understand it:
1. "Extending your logic, I have a CCIE, so if I ever state I'm a CCIE, I'm an employee of Cisco? [other examples follow]"
2. "All your examples are not things that commonly are job titles, so you are not 'extending logic'."
3. "They are the same class"
4. "No they aren't, those are not job titles, thus they don't imply employment"
...
#. "those weren't attempts to argue the title isnt confusing."
I don't know what you're reading but #1 is doing just that; roughly translated: "Why would 'Microsoft Regional Director' imply he works for Microsoft? If I have a CCIE does that mean I'm an employee of Cisco?"
#3 Being a Microsoft Regional Director makes him an employee and any claims otherwise are based on some arbitrary semantic distiction, not a real difference
#4 No, there is a real difference. That award is like these other awards and none of them take you anywhere near being an employee.
#5 the arguemnt in #3 is flawed because MRD is confusing and the example title others aren't. (Which misses the point, that using non-confusing examples is much better than using other confusing examples if you want to explain something.)
#6 that doesn't affect the argument being made in #4
#6 repeat ad nauseum
Troy is not a Microsoft employee, no ammount of semantic wiggling will make him a Microsoft employee, no matter how confused people are by the title of the MRD award. That confusion may be justifiable, but doubling down when your error has been explained is not.
