So in reading the comments from Lori there is a pretty good reason why the initial offer for a call was rejected, this was left out in the main body of the post. Their point was if a private conversation takes place, especially over a call where information isn't recorded, then the CEO could claim whatever they want took place during that conversation.

Here is the quote, you can find it in the third comment from the top:

"1) If there's one thing I know about online interactions, it's not to let someone take you to Crime Scene Number Two. Having a private debate with Vlad about this would mean no witnesses and no accountability, meaning he could claim anything about the discussion. Even moreso when done through a call instead of text."

So I do agree that it seems a bit hostile for a first response but it does seem to come from experience with these situations. You could give the CEO the benefit of the doubt and say that wasn't his intentions, but if I was in Lori's shoes I would have reacted the same way and not given the benefit of the doubt.