His use of the word litigate is clear. When he combines it with threats of claims of damages, and of it being "too late" when he posts his video - it is obvious his intent was threatening to sue. To be honest it was obvious even without those things. No-one uses litigate in the archaic sense ... especially those with poor language skills, who will always use the commonly understood meaning of a word.
In my experience people with such poor language skills often use incorrect meanings or senses of words.
"I will be obliged to litigate and seek damages" - how is that not clear?
Are you quoting, or paraphrasing?
He has now realised that this has been bad PR, and is trying to roll it back. But is doing it disingenuously by pretending he was never making that threat - rather than doing what any reasonable individual would do, and apologise for it.
I don't understand why you are defending the disingenuous approach.
I don't understand why anyone assigned meaning, coherency and agency to his communications at all. I mean I do understand and I'm not criticising anyone caught up in this (to the contrary, they have my sympathy) but I recommend not doing those things, based on my own experience.
Last edited: