Yet Adams' claim - of discrimination for being white and male - is somehow presumed to be 'different' from the 'truth', just because he "claimed that long after the fact"?
The truth does not change depending on the age of a claim.
Evidence would be interesting, but unsupported accusations don't add anything to the conversation.
Anyone could respond "he claimed that...which is somewhat different from it being known to be true" after any claim. It's just a way of derailing discussion and reducing the cognitive dissonance of a statement you'd rather not believe.
Yes, that's exactly how I feel about his long-delayed claims of explicit cut-and-dried (with decades of on-point precedent at the time he claims it occurred) illegal employment practice by his previous employer.
Or to put it another way: his own testimony is a form of evidence.
Whereas this entire diversion, starting from your comment, has added no new information. I think we should stop now.
Seeing as how Adams has no evidence whatsoever that a large corporation whose HR department would be well-versed in what they can and cannot say (as well as what they should and should not say) to employees I think the burden of proof rests on Adams.
