There is no confusion, you used specific words with specific meanings. If you wish to recant them, then fine.
As I said, the AC and I were communicating just fine. If you really do believe that Eich's departure wasn't related to public outcry I really do need to understand this because it fundamentally flies against what I understand your position to be on this argument.
I wasn't poorly informed...
Your description of what the conflict was lacked any of the important details of this story. When you finally did partially educate yourself we were able to move forward. Unfortunately you didn't read all of it so we're stuck again.
But if you think outing you was an attempt to insult you, you are completely missing the point....
BTW, do you have a problem with being outed as being gay? Are you some sort of closet hater or something? Are you simply transposing your own feelings and motivations on to Eich in order to satisfy some internal conflict about your homosexuality? I don't understand all the hate from you.
Those two statements right next to each other are hilarious.;)
I went off assuming you are gay purposely with more information than you have about Eich...
This is untrue, proven in my last comment. For some reason you only half-read what is put in front of you.
Or you could be laundering money from some illegal operation and doing nothing with the whore other than talking about how to spend it.
Heh, yeah, it'd totally make sense that I'd run around doing interviews while trying to hide another crime. Oh, and you can stretch your character all you want, you've proven time and time again here that's not what you would do. At this point, you thinking I'm gay is my fault, not yours.
Despite no one ever being able to show they were discriminated by the man...
False. If you were properly informed on this story you would never have made this statement. Are you even aware of where Mozilla's HQ is located?
Who was it that said we don't need gun control, we need bullet-control. If a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no innocent bystanders. Was it Chris Rock?
Gee, a centralized place where people can easily post short catalogable messages provides valuable data about events. I thought Twitter was exclusively about narcissism.
SJWs are people like yourself who probably live in the suburbs and have never lived in a place where there is a struggle for true social justice./quote.
A SJW is a term to describe clueless people who fight for social justice. Usually upper middle class suburban whites with no concept of living in the real world.
Heh. Yeah. The reason you put the word 'clueless' in there is so you can justify calling anybody that the moment you're starting to lose an argument. "He disagrees with me, not because he's better educated on the topic, but because he's clueless!"
The translation of SJW is: "Anyone who doesn't agree with me", "Any woman who won't sleep with me (see: all women)" and "People who I just feel I don't like at the moment".
I don't get why this was modded down. When asked what an SJW is you'll get an answer that describes a very specific set of circumstances, but the term itself is thrown around exactly as the AC posted.
Oh thank God. I was worried we may have a 24 hour break without this critically important story to the Slashdot readership appearing on the front page.
Looks like I have some more reading to do, thank you.
My source was that a friend of mine is the creator of a semi-known comic. His character was parodied on a popular TV show. His lawyer was pressuring him to take action about it, that was the reason he gave him. Perhaps I misread an attempt to drum up business for the lawyer.
Words have meanings and they are assembled to convey messages and thoughts.
Correct. The AC and I were communicating our messages and thoughts just fine, we understood each other. You, however, became conveniently confused right about the time that I teased you for not having read up on the topic. That would be you misunderstanding the context. Now if you're putting forward the idea that Eich didn't end up unemployed because of the actions of 'people with opinions', then one could attribute that to something other than a cheap debate tactic.
I'm insisting that there is not enough of an official record to make statements that are anything more than an opinion.
What happened was you went forward on a poorly informed opinion. Now that you've finally informed yourself you're trying to keep your head held high while packin' that parachute.
And as for you being gay, I already told you i don't care. I don't think any less of you for it.
Both statements are incorrect. You do care. You're trying to stick me with that label because you want it to be true. You're trying to say I'm emotional and irrational. The hilarity of your approach here is that in mixing that with your ignorance on the topic all you've done is ascribe a pretty solid reason as to why I would have a much better grasp of this topic than you do.
I have no more evidence that you are gay than you have evidence of any motive involved with the donation.
Not exactly. Let's paint a picture that would make this statement true. Let's say someone found an official receipt from a... oh I don't know the proper term, but let's say 'legally-operated whore house in Nevada'. On this receipt it shows I paid a substantial amount of money for an hour with a male prostitute, and that I didn't leave the room until that hour was up. Let's then further say that the existence of this receipt angered a lot of people who feel I should 'pray the gay away'. Public statements were made saying that sex with another man is a sin man should only lay with woman and so forth. So I issued an apology worded thusly: "I'm sorry for causing that pain." And... that's it, that's the whole apology. If this happened, THEN your statement would be true. Also, if it turned out I wasn't gay then your belief that I am would be entirely my fault and not yours.
Use of the term does distort things because you are saying it is false.
Actually I was just fuzzy on the usage. Also if you're going to throw out the context then it doesn't make sense to whine about about linkage.
He has said he was sorry for causing pain.
Hey! You typed something into Google! Congrats!
That is not any statement that he did or did not know of the advertising at the time of the donation or at any time before this fiasco broke out.
... and you didn't read much of it. Okay, that's fine, we'll work around it. Not only did he have the opportunity right there to say: "I don't support what those ads depicted.".. but that was also the appropriate time to do it, especially later in his apology when he talks about adhering to Mozilla's goals. It's pretty clear he was fine with what his money was used for.
I would suggest he is ashamed of the donation but his silence...
Heh. I bet you don't see the irony of this statement. Anyway, he probably would have kept his job if he had said something about being ashamed of the donation. He didn't. He was perfectly happy to make statements and do interviews, but when it came time to discuss his donation... nope nope nope, we ain't touchin that.
As for you being gay, I don't really care....Just don't make crap up about someone and pretend it is the truth...
You cared enough to make up crap about me being gay and pretend it's true.
Oh, I noticed still no links. They don't exist.
Oh, I noticed the conversation progressed when you finally started doing the prerequisite reading! I do appreciate that you've been packing your parachute all this time with this statement, but you just tore a hole in it.
p.s. Now that the conversation has started up again, we're at round 6 disproving the assertion.
It's kinda funny, actually. The reason the iPhone didn't originally support mutli-tasking is battery life. Now that it does support it, even after going through the extremes they have to keep it lightweight, people still preemptively kill battery hoggish apps.
Fired means one thing, the employer terminated someone. Lost means any number of several things and fired can be one of them.
When we talk about all those mean old SJWs forcing him out", people like to describe that as them getting him fired. The AC and I weren't disputing that people speaking up directly resulted in his losing his job, and I doubt you're disputing that either. Use of either term doesn't distort anything, as backed up by the AC.
I'm no more uninformed about the situation than you are.
You literally said "He has made no statements about it at all that I am aware of.", which is hilarious because the very statement he made caused a lot of babble over here from the people sharing your view. You also didn't know that it was about the ad-campaign, the timeline of when he donated, and you even concocted an amusing theory that his buddy wanted him to make an unwitting donation to prop 8.
Here is why the link is important. None exist other than opinions of people like you....
... and in the basic story that talks about the ad-campaign, the timeline of when he made the donation, and the statement he made where he didn't refute any of it. Also I haven't refused anything.
... who believe their fantasies are reality.
Heh. So this means you fantasize about me being gay? I'm flattered!
As for "can't disable ad-blocking for a single web site", true but irrelevant - why would you do that?
I have disabled ad-blocks on a few sites that a.) I wish to remain alive and b.) I've used regularly for years and never had one complaint about their advertising. If you've never felt altruistic in this regard then I can also mention that sometimes ad-blockers get false positives, preventing me from using some features of sites.
So your excuse for getting lost his job wrong is that you didn't expect the wording?
Heh. I don't think you read my post. "Fired" vs. "lost his job" is a matter of interpretation. If you had read a little further (your lack of reading completion seems to be a theme, here...) The AC didn't have any particular issue with it. Down the road when you argue about this topic the convenience will change and you're going to claim he was fired because of those stupid SJWs.
He willfully made the donation with his employer's name listed. Somebody else didn't come along and write it in for him. Don't write what you can't erase, yadda yadda yadda.
You insist he was aware of it both before and after the donation and have absolutely no evidence to support the assertion.
Heh. By your own admission you are poorly informed on this topic. What you're asking about is akin to getting into a debate about Star Wars about Luke being unqualified to be a Jedi, calling someone who argues with you gay, replying to half-read posts with pedantic rebuttals, and complaining that nobody will send you a link that proves Luke had any abilities to use the force. It's just too much effort to watch a movie you're clearly interested in.
He willfully participated in helpful advertising, proven in the time-line of events
That was supposed to be 'hateful advertising'. I was in a rush when I wrote my last post, I apologize if there are other haste-related errors that hindered my clarity.
You claimed the op said he was fired when he said lost his job.
Heh. I love how people switch sides on this depending on what argument they're trying to put forth. "Oh he lost his job." "Oh the mean ol' SJWs got him fired." It's not very often you see someone clearly on the side of Eich not claiming he was fired. Anyway, you should have scrolled down a bit, the AC didn't have any particular issue with the word 'fired'.
. You claimed his listing his employer when making the donation was him representing Mozilla when you were corrected that it was law and in no way reflected on Mozilla. You insist that he participated in the so called hateful advertising when there is no proof he did. In fact you keep alluding to some nefarious alternative reality that you refuse to share any details of despite several people requesting them (including me).
And here's the short version: No matter which way you slice it, he willingly made the donation and wrote in his employer. He willfully participated in helpful advertising, proven in the time-line of events. Any doubt of that was laid to rest in his statements in which he did not express regret that his money was used improperly. You haven't actually asked me for any links. You did bitch about me not providing links to basic elements of the story that you should already know about, that happened a few times, but you also bitched about me being gay, having mental issues, and how stupid I am, so it's pretty clear that was just a debate tactic. You also weren't aware of basic facts of the story (including that the OP danced on both sides of the pedantry fence...) so I know you won't read anything I pass your way anyway.
Just admit it. You have nothing but got your feelings hurt and want to trash talk him even if you have to lie to do it.
Heh. Let's see... your feelings are hurt, I can tell because you're name calling. You're trash talking me, calling me mentally ill, stupid, and gay. You're having to lie to do it, you don't know my sexual orientation, mental health, or any scores relating to my mental prowess. You, sir, are projecting.;)
Ah, I almost forgot. Since you're referring to details of the story at hand that still have nothing to do with Eich's beliefs... we're now at Round 5 of a successful disproval of the original assertion.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no confusion, you used specific words with specific meanings. If you wish to recant them, then fine.
As I said, the AC and I were communicating just fine. If you really do believe that Eich's departure wasn't related to public outcry I really do need to understand this because it fundamentally flies against what I understand your position to be on this argument.
I wasn't poorly informed...
Your description of what the conflict was lacked any of the important details of this story. When you finally did partially educate yourself we were able to move forward. Unfortunately you didn't read all of it so we're stuck again.
But if you think outing you was an attempt to insult you, you are completely missing the point. ...
BTW, do you have a problem with being outed as being gay? Are you some sort of closet hater or something? Are you simply transposing your own feelings and motivations on to Eich in order to satisfy some internal conflict about your homosexuality? I don't understand all the hate from you.
Those two statements right next to each other are hilarious. ;)
I went off assuming you are gay purposely with more information than you have about Eich...
This is untrue, proven in my last comment. For some reason you only half-read what is put in front of you.
Or you could be laundering money from some illegal operation and doing nothing with the whore other than talking about how to spend it.
Heh, yeah, it'd totally make sense that I'd run around doing interviews while trying to hide another crime. Oh, and you can stretch your character all you want, you've proven time and time again here that's not what you would do. At this point, you thinking I'm gay is my fault, not yours.
Despite no one ever being able to show they were discriminated by the man...
False. If you were properly informed on this story you would never have made this statement. Are you even aware of where Mozilla's HQ is located?
No, your disagreement with the price is not an excuse.
Google is well within their rights to do this. They offer a $10/mo service to go ad-free. There isn't any excuse to block ads on Youtube.
This BTW is the reason why there are drug laws, to keep the market price up.
Heh. Keeping the market price up means keeping the sale of drugs down. Supply and Demand.
Who was it that said we don't need gun control, we need bullet-control. If a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no innocent bystanders. Was it Chris Rock?
To the engineer's credit, at least he used a platform that won't require testing due to software updates!
No, your niche OS isn't supported. You'll just have to live with watching it on your Blu-ray player, smartphone, game console, or smart-TV.
Gee, a centralized place where people can easily post short catalogable messages provides valuable data about events. I thought Twitter was exclusively about narcissism.
Let me guess: I am right? You live in the suburbs.
Nope.
SJWs are people like yourself who probably live in the suburbs and have never lived in a place where there is a struggle for true social justice./quote.
Thank you for proving my point.
A SJW is a term to describe clueless people who fight for social justice. Usually upper middle class suburban whites with no concept of living in the real world.
Heh. Yeah. The reason you put the word 'clueless' in there is so you can justify calling anybody that the moment you're starting to lose an argument. "He disagrees with me, not because he's better educated on the topic, but because he's clueless!"
The translation of SJW is: "Anyone who doesn't agree with me", "Any woman who won't sleep with me (see: all women)" and "People who I just feel I don't like at the moment".
I don't get why this was modded down. When asked what an SJW is you'll get an answer that describes a very specific set of circumstances, but the term itself is thrown around exactly as the AC posted.
Oh look another SJW. Bla blahblah. Blahbla'h bla bl blahblah? Bla bla bl blahblah. B bla'h blah bla bla bla'h blah bla bl blahb blahblahb.
I can't wait until this fad passes.
Oh thank God. I was worried we may have a 24 hour break without this critically important story to the Slashdot readership appearing on the front page.
FTFY.
Looks like I have some more reading to do, thank you.
My source was that a friend of mine is the creator of a semi-known comic. His character was parodied on a popular TV show. His lawyer was pressuring him to take action about it, that was the reason he gave him. Perhaps I misread an attempt to drum up business for the lawyer.
Words have meanings and they are assembled to convey messages and thoughts.
Correct. The AC and I were communicating our messages and thoughts just fine, we understood each other. You, however, became conveniently confused right about the time that I teased you for not having read up on the topic. That would be you misunderstanding the context. Now if you're putting forward the idea that Eich didn't end up unemployed because of the actions of 'people with opinions', then one could attribute that to something other than a cheap debate tactic.
I'm insisting that there is not enough of an official record to make statements that are anything more than an opinion.
What happened was you went forward on a poorly informed opinion. Now that you've finally informed yourself you're trying to keep your head held high while packin' that parachute.
And as for you being gay, I already told you i don't care. I don't think any less of you for it.
Both statements are incorrect. You do care. You're trying to stick me with that label because you want it to be true. You're trying to say I'm emotional and irrational. The hilarity of your approach here is that in mixing that with your ignorance on the topic all you've done is ascribe a pretty solid reason as to why I would have a much better grasp of this topic than you do.
I have no more evidence that you are gay than you have evidence of any motive involved with the donation.
Not exactly. Let's paint a picture that would make this statement true. Let's say someone found an official receipt from a ... oh I don't know the proper term, but let's say 'legally-operated whore house in Nevada'. On this receipt it shows I paid a substantial amount of money for an hour with a male prostitute, and that I didn't leave the room until that hour was up. Let's then further say that the existence of this receipt angered a lot of people who feel I should 'pray the gay away'. Public statements were made saying that sex with another man is a sin man should only lay with woman and so forth. So I issued an apology worded thusly: "I'm sorry for causing that pain." And... that's it, that's the whole apology. If this happened, THEN your statement would be true. Also, if it turned out I wasn't gay then your belief that I am would be entirely my fault and not yours.
You mean trademarked, and no they can't.
Use of the term does distort things because you are saying it is false.
Actually I was just fuzzy on the usage. Also if you're going to throw out the context then it doesn't make sense to whine about about linkage.
He has said he was sorry for causing pain.
Hey! You typed something into Google! Congrats!
That is not any statement that he did or did not know of the advertising at the time of the donation or at any time before this fiasco broke out.
... and you didn't read much of it. Okay, that's fine, we'll work around it. Not only did he have the opportunity right there to say: "I don't support what those ads depicted." .. but that was also the appropriate time to do it, especially later in his apology when he talks about adhering to Mozilla's goals. It's pretty clear he was fine with what his money was used for.
I would suggest he is ashamed of the donation but his silence...
Heh. I bet you don't see the irony of this statement. Anyway, he probably would have kept his job if he had said something about being ashamed of the donation. He didn't. He was perfectly happy to make statements and do interviews, but when it came time to discuss his donation... nope nope nope, we ain't touchin that.
As for you being gay, I don't really care....Just don't make crap up about someone and pretend it is the truth...
You cared enough to make up crap about me being gay and pretend it's true.
Oh, I noticed still no links. They don't exist.
Oh, I noticed the conversation progressed when you finally started doing the prerequisite reading! I do appreciate that you've been packing your parachute all this time with this statement, but you just tore a hole in it.
p.s. Now that the conversation has started up again, we're at round 6 disproving the assertion.
It's kinda funny, actually. The reason the iPhone didn't originally support mutli-tasking is battery life. Now that it does support it, even after going through the extremes they have to keep it lightweight, people still preemptively kill battery hoggish apps.
Apple did try to warn us.
Fired means one thing, the employer terminated someone. Lost means any number of several things and fired can be one of them.
When we talk about all those mean old SJWs forcing him out", people like to describe that as them getting him fired. The AC and I weren't disputing that people speaking up directly resulted in his losing his job, and I doubt you're disputing that either. Use of either term doesn't distort anything, as backed up by the AC.
I'm no more uninformed about the situation than you are.
You literally said "He has made no statements about it at all that I am aware of.", which is hilarious because the very statement he made caused a lot of babble over here from the people sharing your view. You also didn't know that it was about the ad-campaign, the timeline of when he donated, and you even concocted an amusing theory that his buddy wanted him to make an unwitting donation to prop 8.
Here is why the link is important. None exist other than opinions of people like you....
... and in the basic story that talks about the ad-campaign, the timeline of when he made the donation, and the statement he made where he didn't refute any of it. Also I haven't refused anything.
... who believe their fantasies are reality.
Heh. So this means you fantasize about me being gay? I'm flattered!
As for "can't disable ad-blocking for a single web site", true but irrelevant - why would you do that?
I have disabled ad-blocks on a few sites that a.) I wish to remain alive and b.) I've used regularly for years and never had one complaint about their advertising. If you've never felt altruistic in this regard then I can also mention that sometimes ad-blockers get false positives, preventing me from using some features of sites.
So your excuse for getting lost his job wrong is that you didn't expect the wording?
Heh. I don't think you read my post. "Fired" vs. "lost his job" is a matter of interpretation. If you had read a little further (your lack of reading completion seems to be a theme, here...) The AC didn't have any particular issue with it. Down the road when you argue about this topic the convenience will change and you're going to claim he was fired because of those stupid SJWs.
He willfully made the donation with his employer's name listed. Somebody else didn't come along and write it in for him. Don't write what you can't erase, yadda yadda yadda.
You insist he was aware of it both before and after the donation and have absolutely no evidence to support the assertion.
Heh. By your own admission you are poorly informed on this topic. What you're asking about is akin to getting into a debate about Star Wars about Luke being unqualified to be a Jedi, calling someone who argues with you gay, replying to half-read posts with pedantic rebuttals, and complaining that nobody will send you a link that proves Luke had any abilities to use the force. It's just too much effort to watch a movie you're clearly interested in.
You have some prerequisite reading to do.
He willfully participated in helpful advertising, proven in the time-line of events
That was supposed to be 'hateful advertising'. I was in a rush when I wrote my last post, I apologize if there are other haste-related errors that hindered my clarity.
You claimed the op said he was fired when he said lost his job.
Heh. I love how people switch sides on this depending on what argument they're trying to put forth. "Oh he lost his job." "Oh the mean ol' SJWs got him fired." It's not very often you see someone clearly on the side of Eich not claiming he was fired. Anyway, you should have scrolled down a bit, the AC didn't have any particular issue with the word 'fired'.
. You claimed his listing his employer when making the donation was him representing Mozilla when you were corrected that it was law and in no way reflected on Mozilla. You insist that he participated in the so called hateful advertising when there is no proof he did. In fact you keep alluding to some nefarious alternative reality that you refuse to share any details of despite several people requesting them (including me).
And here's the short version: No matter which way you slice it, he willingly made the donation and wrote in his employer. He willfully participated in helpful advertising, proven in the time-line of events. Any doubt of that was laid to rest in his statements in which he did not express regret that his money was used improperly. You haven't actually asked me for any links. You did bitch about me not providing links to basic elements of the story that you should already know about, that happened a few times, but you also bitched about me being gay, having mental issues, and how stupid I am, so it's pretty clear that was just a debate tactic. You also weren't aware of basic facts of the story (including that the OP danced on both sides of the pedantry fence...) so I know you won't read anything I pass your way anyway.
Just admit it. You have nothing but got your feelings hurt and want to trash talk him even if you have to lie to do it.
Heh. Let's see... your feelings are hurt, I can tell because you're name calling. You're trash talking me, calling me mentally ill, stupid, and gay. You're having to lie to do it, you don't know my sexual orientation, mental health, or any scores relating to my mental prowess. You, sir, are projecting. ;)
Ah, I almost forgot. Since you're referring to details of the story at hand that still have nothing to do with Eich's beliefs... we're now at Round 5 of a successful disproval of the original assertion.