Had the same thought. Not saying Google's all sunshine and daisies, but this guys is doing exactly what anyone who was lying in this situation would do....
He has yet to give a single shred of evidence, and I find it highly unlikely that after three years he doesn't have a single piece of evidence that isn't tied to his identity.
The whole article is him trying to reinforce the fact that he 'knows the inner workings of Google', by, once again, giving us literally no evidence of that knowledge... Stating that he used Google specific vernacular in his last post, but not letting us know what...
It's not as if people are hard to convince; everybody likes to watch a giant fall, just give us some proof.
He has yet to give a single shred of evidence, and I find it highly unlikely that after three years he doesn't have a single piece of evidence that isn't tied to his identity.
The whole article is him trying to reinforce the fact that he 'knows the inner workings of Google', by, once again, giving us literally no evidence of that knowledge... Stating that he used Google specific vernacular in his last post, but not letting us know what...
It's not as if people are hard to convince; everybody likes to watch a giant fall, just give us some proof.