4 ms·

> Transferring names causes tons of havoc, as witnessed. What if they believe not transferring the name will cause more havoc? > > What leads you to believe t

> Transferring names causes tons of havoc, as witnessed. What if they believe not transferring the name will cause more havoc? > > What leads you to believe that the threats are the cause for them siding with Kik? > People close to NPM keep making this argument. Others have reported that some of those claims actually turned out to be lies. I'd love to hear more about that, but I hope you'll forgive me for distrusting your memory seeing as you seem to have misremembered Bob saying he doesn't mean to be a dick as Bob calling Azer a pussy [0]. I assume you've already seen the various places on their blog and on Twitter than NPM has said that the threats weren't the cause for them siding with Kik. I'm happy to produce them if you haven't. > You didn't address many of my points, so I think skipping around is fair game. I certainly tried my darnedest to, which point did I not address? > The problem with your point is that the threat is not reasonable. Bob couldn't even give a concrete Trademark registration that the package violated (because one doesn't exist). In my allegory, would Alice's threat only have been reasonable if she had produced a "concrete" copyright registration? > You're telling me that a court will have no problem with agents sending threats of "our trademark lawyers are going to be banging on your door and taking down your accounts and stuff like that"? Yes, I am. I've never heard of a court having a problem with use of metaphorical language when threatening lawsuits, legitimate or otherwise. > There is just no way to spin this as being compliant with the Code of Conduct. None. This isn't an argument, it's just asserting I'm wrong. The Alice vs Monsanto allegory in my initial reply to you directly addressed this. > it is highly likely that Azer received the email sent ~8 minutes after I'll concede this point, hopefully it's clear that it's irrelevant to the larger point I'm making. > > Would Alice's additional emails be spamming and harassment? > In your hypothetical? It would appear so. Just so we're clear, you're saying that if someone fucks you over illegally, and you email them asking them to stop, and they ask you not to email them again, you trying one more time to reason with them as well as CC-ing them when you escalate the situation is spamming and harassment of the people fucking you over? > You and Bob have already admitted to malice (here comes, "We don't mean to be a dick about it, but", again). I acknowledged that Bob in fact did say "We don't mean to be a dick about it, but", and suggested that it could be paraphrased to include "Hi, it's not our intention to cause you pain...". When did I "admit" to malice? I was specifically trying to explain why "We don't mean to be a dick about it, but" is not malice. > I don't think malice is actually required to be considered trolling though. Do you actually want to debate this point? [1] [2] [3] > kik Interactive doesn't even want (and isn't even now using) the package They went through a lot of trouble to get it, what leads you to believe they don't want it? At the very least they explicitly say they want it to avoid confusion for people expecting a package by them. > Why is Bob spamming again? That's actually a great question for you. Why do you think Bob is spamming, if not his stated reason (avoiding confusion from people expecting the 'kik' package to be by Kik, the software company with almost as many users as the population of the US)? Do you think Bob woke up that morning, looked himself in the mirror and decided his goal for the day was pissing off Azer? > "after I refused them" undoubtedly refers to his first, entirely reasonable response, "Sorry, I'm building an open source project with that name." You're right. Re-examing the timeline, "We’re not getting anywhere with this" is clearly a response to "Azer's response to Bob's offer of compensation". > > "fuck you" > How is this not a casual phrasing? It is casual phrasing, but it's also disrespectful. By contrast, "We don't meant to be a dick" is acknowledging that the recipient is probably not going to like what they have to do. > "Azer seems to be acting pretty poorly." [hilarious by the way] "fuck you" and "bunch of corporate dicks" aren't exactly shining gems of discourse. [0]: "Is it OK to start referring to people as pussies in emails to them if they don't give up their names?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11383607 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11383607 [1]: "make a DELIBERATELY offensive or provocative online..." (emphasis added) https://www.google.com/search?q=trolling https://www.google.com/search?q=trolling [2]: "Being a prick on the internet BECAUSE YOU CAN. ..." (emphasis added) http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling [3]: "...with the DELIBERATE INTENT of..." (emphasis added) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

jsprogrammer 11y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11341285 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11341285 Your claim of misremembering is vacuous. I never claimed Bob called Azer a pussy. >Just so we're clear, you're saying that if someone fucks you over illegally, Just so we are clear, I never said that. If you believe otherwise, you'll need to produce a quote. Your hypothetical is baseless as kik was not "fucked over illegally". kik can't produce a Trademark. Azer didn't even know who kik was. > In fact, once Azer had made it clear that he wasn’t going to change the name, we decided to use a different name for an upcoming package we are going to publish to NPM. We did hope that Azer would change his mind, but we were proceeding under a different package name even when we were told we could have the name Kik. https://medium.com/@mproberts/a-discussion-about-the-breaking-of-the-internet-3d4d2a83aa4d#.hz69bhd5q https://medium.com/@mproberts/a-discussion-about-the-breakin... I may get to the rest later today.
- laughinghan 11y ago
  > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11341285 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11341285 What is this? Is this supposed to be a point you made that I didn't respond to? This doesn't appear to be a thread I participated in, this appears to be a distant cousin at best to any exchange I'm part of. > Your claim of misremembering is vacuous. I never claimed Bob called Azer a pussy. It's strongly implied by: > How does one non-NPM user [...] get to harass an actual NPM user [...], in violation NPM policy [...]? Is it OK to start referring to people as pussies in emails to them if they don't give up their names? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11383607 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11383607 Was that just a non-sequitor? > Just so we are clear, I never said that. [...] Your hypothetical is baseless as kik was not... > Would Alice's additional emails be spamming and harassment? In your hypothetical? It would appear so. I thought it was pretty clear "your hypothetical" referred to my Alice vs Monsanto allegory, not kik. But I really don't care what you didn't say. I'm trying to understand what you ARE saying. I'm trying to understand your notion of harassment. If someone illegally fucks you over, and you email them asking them to stop, and they ask you not to email them again (about them fucking you over), is it harassment to try one last time to reason with them, and CC them when escalating the situation? > If you believe otherwise, you'll need to produce a quote. While I very much appreciate that you're engaging with me, I'm under no impression that you're obligated to do anything. I hope you realize that goes both ways. > kik can't produce a Trademark. What leads you to believe this? Because they haven't yet? Neither NPM nor Azer asked them to, why would they? > once Azer had made it clear that he wasn’t going to change the name, we decided to use a different name for an upcoming package we are going to publish to NPM. We did hope that Azer would change his mind, but we were proceeding under a different package name even when we were told we could have the name Kik. I'm not sure why you're quoting this, it doesn't say they don't want it, it says they're not using it for the package they're going to publish. No one is disputing that fact. Their stated reason for wanting the package name still applies, namely, avoiding confusion for people who install 'kik' expecting a package by them.

jsprogrammer 11y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11341285 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11341285 Your claim of misremembering is vacuous. I never claimed Bob called Azer a pussy. >Just so we're clear, you're saying that if someone fucks you over illegally, Just so we are clear, I never said that. If you believe otherwise, you'll need to produce a quote. Your hypothetical is baseless as kik was not "fucked over illegally". kik can't produce a Trademark. Azer didn't even know who kik was. > In fact, once Azer had made it clear that he wasn’t going to change the name, we decided to use a different name for an upcoming package we are going to publish to NPM. We did hope that Azer would change his mind, but we were proceeding under a different package name even when we were told we could have the name Kik. https://medium.com/@mproberts/a-discussion-about-the-breaking-of-the-internet-3d4d2a83aa4d#.hz69bhd5q https://medium.com/@mproberts/a-discussion-about-the-breakin... I may get to the rest later today.

laughinghan 11y ago
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11341285 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11341285 What is this? Is this supposed to be a point you made that I didn't respond to? This doesn't appear to be a thread I participated in, this appears to be a distant cousin at best to any exchange I'm part of. > Your claim of misremembering is vacuous. I never claimed Bob called Azer a pussy. It's strongly implied by: > How does one non-NPM user [...] get to harass an actual NPM user [...], in violation NPM policy [...]? Is it OK to start referring to people as pussies in emails to them if they don't give up their names? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11383607 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11383607 Was that just a non-sequitor? > Just so we are clear, I never said that. [...] Your hypothetical is baseless as kik was not... > Would Alice's additional emails be spamming and harassment? In your hypothetical? It would appear so. I thought it was pretty clear "your hypothetical" referred to my Alice vs Monsanto allegory, not kik. But I really don't care what you didn't say. I'm trying to understand what you ARE saying. I'm trying to understand your notion of harassment. If someone illegally fucks you over, and you email them asking them to stop, and they ask you not to email them again (about them fucking you over), is it harassment to try one last time to reason with them, and CC them when escalating the situation? > If you believe otherwise, you'll need to produce a quote. While I very much appreciate that you're engaging with me, I'm under no impression that you're obligated to do anything. I hope you realize that goes both ways. > kik can't produce a Trademark. What leads you to believe this? Because they haven't yet? Neither NPM nor Azer asked them to, why would they? > once Azer had made it clear that he wasn’t going to change the name, we decided to use a different name for an upcoming package we are going to publish to NPM. We did hope that Azer would change his mind, but we were proceeding under a different package name even when we were told we could have the name Kik. I'm not sure why you're quoting this, it doesn't say they don't want it, it says they're not using it for the package they're going to publish. No one is disputing that fact. Their stated reason for wanting the package name still applies, namely, avoiding confusion for people who install 'kik' expecting a package by them.