>>you're attempting to parse a random combination of tea leaves and chicken entrails

It is exactly the opposite — it is reading the actual language used for its intended meaning.

Every CEO is expected to not only understand the issues he faces and is managing, but to ALSO carefully choose the words to describe the situation and the intentions of the organization he leads.

When a CEO makes a statement about what should be a core fundamental principle of an organization, we can certainly expect that CEO to choose their words carefully.

Those words are, or at least should be, the exact opposite of "tea leaves and chicken entrails".

If the CEO is sloppy and the chosen words should actually be considered "tea leaves and chicken entrails", that is a different problem of a less-than-competent CEO.

If those words were actually chosen carefully, consider these two statements:

The actual statement: "[I don't] want to do that. It feels off-mission"

A different statement: "This is a core fundamental principle of Mozilla and I will not lead the company in that direction — not on my watch".

One could technically say "they both say 'Not today'".

But that would be absurd, and stupidly throwing out significant meaning in what the CEO chose to say and how he chose to say it.

He made the first vague statement with weasel words instead of something resembling the bold and unambiguous statement resembling the second statement.

The statement he did make is "I don't want to", which type of statement has often preceded an eventual "sorry, we had to".

There is a lot to make Firefox users nervous, and his choice of statement here did not help matters.