I'm sure most would agree that suggests that theymos told him not to remove laudas negative feedback.
Indeed. This clearly suggests theymos told him something like "please don't remove the negative trust you left on Lauda's profile" or even "I agree with you Lauda deserves negative trust as he either scammed or tried to scam".
OgNasty wrote that in a way there's a technicality to avoid explicitly accusing him to lie but, after reading the actual quote and explanation posted by theymos, I now know quotes posted by OgNasty can't be trusted unless I have access to the whole story and have read the whole conversation.
I very much doubt OG would try to mislead the reader to that degree.
I thought that too but I was clearly mistaken. He can mislead to that degree as long as he finds a way to avoid bringing accused of lying.
It seems that everyone involved is being very misleading at best. They are probably not doing what would get them convicted of perjury if they were under oath, but I would ask additional probing questions before trusting the substance of what anyone involved says in the future.
I think everyone involved should agree with or dispute that theymos told the *whole* truth as to what happened
Assuming theymos is telling the whole truth, it looks like OgN removed his trust against lauda in order to improve his trust score based on his above statement in addition to what theymos said. For this, I believe he is in the wrong. I also think theymos is in the wrong as explained in my above post. Lauda hasnt really addressed the issue, but IMO, he was using his position in DT to silence his critic (along with his friends positions in DT).
Lauda seems to have learned a lesson from my fiasco years ago to not make any public statements when involved in controversy (as he has done many times or to keep the public statements to be few and vague). In corporate America, not cooperating with an investigation is grounds to get fired, regardless of your innocence.