> it's important to note that Douglas Crockford can definitely be abrasive [1]. The issue at hand is that whether this abrasiveness is a bad thing, when compare

> it's important to note that Douglas Crockford can definitely be abrasive [1]. The issue at hand is that whether this abrasiveness is a bad thing, when compared to the contributions he's made and whether it leads to constructive discussions. I'm not sure what bearing, if any, one's contributions should have on how individuals or communities respond to behaviour and "abrasiveness". Good deeds should obviously be respected and appreciated, however they should not shelter one from criticism. > automatically associating Douglas's personality with being a jerk. Being a jerk is usually associated with one's personality. > By allowing certain viewpoints to dominate and silence a subset of speakers, we're ultimately limiting our views and building an echo chamber, One could argue that by enabling abrasive and overpowering personalities and cults of celebrity to dominate these events we were already doing that. > If we're going to dismiss speakers, it should be on merit of their talk and previous talks, not their speaking style. I would think speaking style matters at least somewhat if one is planning on speaking.