6 ms·

Why should they be nervous about doing their job? Also, one X, not two: https://stallman.org/doxing.html https://stallman.org/doxing.html

dfc 11y ago
Is Stallman a new William Safire or Brian Garner? I never knew this was one of his areas of expertise. Oxford lists "doxx" as an alternate but accepted version. I don't have an OED license so I dont have access to the full etymology they use. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dox http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dox
- cakeface 11y ago
  The OED does not have listings for "dox", "doxing" or "doxxing". Well, one entry for "dox" that relates to orthodoxy but that does not apply here.
  - CiPHPerCoder 11y ago
    It's simple: Dox is short for "docs". Shortening a 4-letter word to a 3-letter word is sensible (albeit lazy). Shortening a 4-letter word to a 4-letter word ("doxx") is stupid. I don't know why people spell it with two. Maybe they think it looks cooler? But really it's hacker slang for "I accessed and published sensitive information about an individual" and is in most cases horrible.
- na85 11y ago
  Stallman has been irrelevant for years so I couldn't care less what he has to say on the subject, but tt very clearly comes from "documents -> docs -> dox" and should therefore have just 1 x.
m0nty 11y ago
> Thus, we usually have to write the name of the oil company as "Exxon", though its proper spelling is "e exx o n". (Don't make the mistake of pronouncing "Exxon" like "exon"; you will appear unsophisticated.) The development of the Exxon exx is shown here: http://www.logodesignlove.com/exxon-logo-raymond-loewy http://www.logodesignlove.com/exxon-logo-raymond-loewy It's clearly a double-x rather than any more exotic character, the styling is just that - styling. The Wikipedia article has it as /ˈɛksɒn/ and that's the pronunciation used in their commercials: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_s80Hbac2b8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_s80Hbac2b8 So that's way off-topic. But what he says about "dox" vs. "doxx" is as much a preference as "focused" and "focussed", or "busing" and "bussing" - there's no "correct" way, not even if it is the original way.
- harryjo 11y ago
  The additonal 'x' was added cosmetically, to disambiguate form (a person named) "Exon" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon#History There's no particular reason to believe they wanted to change the pronunciation as well.
- tedks 11y ago
  >The development of the Exxon exx is shown here: woosh
ksenzee 11y ago
> Don't make the mistake of pronouncing "Exxon" like "exon"; you will appear unsophisticated. This is some really advanced trolling, on the level of the emperor's new clothes.
- harryjo 11y ago
  https://stallman.org/articles/exxon.html https://stallman.org/articles/exxon.html April 1 2013
  - ksenzee 11y ago
    Like I say, it's impressive. I might have to try it myself this Friday.
  - jrochkind1 11y ago
    Does he really think he can just imagine things, and then convince other people they are true? Wikipedia says: > The company initially planned to change its name to "Exon", in keeping with the four-letter format of Enco and Esso. However, during the planning process, it was noted that James Exon was the governor of Nebraska. Renaming the company after a sitting governor seemed ill-advised, and the second "x" was added to the new name and logo. No mention of them wanting to name the company with a greek chi but not having that on their typewriters. To be fair, the wikipedia claim isn't cited. Neither is rms's of course.
    - ksenzee 11y ago
      Convincing other people of things that are false is standard practice every April 1. I believe that whole Exxon article is an April Fool's joke. ...although looking at it more carefully, the doxing article is not dated April 1, and it has the same claim in it. Maybe he forgot what he was doing and successfully trolled himself. I don't know. But yes, the Exxon thing is obviously, demonstrably false.
jrochkind1 11y ago
Also, if I understand him right, he insists that the oil company Exxon is mis-spelling as well as mis-pronouncing it's own name, and he knows better. rms is an interesting guy.
GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
That's an unorthodoxx opinino.

dfc 11y ago

Is Stallman a new William Safire or Brian Garner? I never knew this was one of his areas of expertise. Oxford lists "doxx" as an alternate but accepted version. I don't have an OED license so I dont have access to the full etymology they use. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dox http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dox

cakeface 11y ago
The OED does not have listings for "dox", "doxing" or "doxxing". Well, one entry for "dox" that relates to orthodoxy but that does not apply here.
- CiPHPerCoder 11y ago
  It's simple: Dox is short for "docs". Shortening a 4-letter word to a 3-letter word is sensible (albeit lazy). Shortening a 4-letter word to a 4-letter word ("doxx") is stupid. I don't know why people spell it with two. Maybe they think it looks cooler? But really it's hacker slang for "I accessed and published sensitive information about an individual" and is in most cases horrible.
na85 11y ago
Stallman has been irrelevant for years so I couldn't care less what he has to say on the subject, but tt very clearly comes from "documents -> docs -> dox" and should therefore have just 1 x.

m0nty 11y ago

> Thus, we usually have to write the name of the oil company as "Exxon", though its proper spelling is "e exx o n". (Don't make the mistake of pronouncing "Exxon" like "exon"; you will appear unsophisticated.) The development of the Exxon exx is shown here: http://www.logodesignlove.com/exxon-logo-raymond-loewy http://www.logodesignlove.com/exxon-logo-raymond-loewy It's clearly a double-x rather than any more exotic character, the styling is just that - styling. The Wikipedia article has it as /ˈɛksɒn/ and that's the pronunciation used in their commercials: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_s80Hbac2b8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_s80Hbac2b8 So that's way off-topic. But what he says about "dox" vs. "doxx" is as much a preference as "focused" and "focussed", or "busing" and "bussing" - there's no "correct" way, not even if it is the original way.

harryjo 11y ago
The additonal 'x' was added cosmetically, to disambiguate form (a person named) "Exon" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon#History There's no particular reason to believe they wanted to change the pronunciation as well.
tedks 11y ago
>The development of the Exxon exx is shown here: woosh

ksenzee 11y ago

> Don't make the mistake of pronouncing "Exxon" like "exon"; you will appear unsophisticated. This is some really advanced trolling, on the level of the emperor's new clothes.

harryjo 11y ago
https://stallman.org/articles/exxon.html https://stallman.org/articles/exxon.html April 1 2013
- ksenzee 11y ago
  Like I say, it's impressive. I might have to try it myself this Friday.
- jrochkind1 11y ago
  Does he really think he can just imagine things, and then convince other people they are true? Wikipedia says: > The company initially planned to change its name to "Exon", in keeping with the four-letter format of Enco and Esso. However, during the planning process, it was noted that James Exon was the governor of Nebraska. Renaming the company after a sitting governor seemed ill-advised, and the second "x" was added to the new name and logo. No mention of them wanting to name the company with a greek chi but not having that on their typewriters. To be fair, the wikipedia claim isn't cited. Neither is rms's of course.
  - ksenzee 11y ago
    Convincing other people of things that are false is standard practice every April 1. I believe that whole Exxon article is an April Fool's joke. ...although looking at it more carefully, the doxing article is not dated April 1, and it has the same claim in it. Maybe he forgot what he was doing and successfully trolled himself. I don't know. But yes, the Exxon thing is obviously, demonstrably false.

jrochkind1 11y ago

Also, if I understand him right, he insists that the oil company Exxon is mis-spelling as well as mis-pronouncing it's own name, and he knows better. rms is an interesting guy.

GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago

That's an unorthodoxx opinino.