3 ms·

which begs the questions: 1) whom 2) why and it's rather "put-up or shut-up" time, I'd say. I've never heard of this conference. I've read Crockfords books, a

which begs the questions: 1) whom 2) why and it's rather "put-up or shut-up" time, I'd say. I've never heard of this conference. I've read Crockfords books, and while any given person on earth may be a total bear to deal with, I'm not buying this greasy smarmy "he'd been uninvited for undisclosed reasons but we'll imply lot's of socially-disapproved-of reasons without confirming nor denying any of them" what a kafka-esque load of nonsense. the conference organizers are in the wrong and are doing further damage with every greasy fart they let out by way of explanation. disgusting.

eli 10y ago
They're free to invite and disinvite whoever they please. You're free to not attend. I don't think airing private grievances will help anyone.
- calgoo 10y ago
  Yes but if you are going to give half-assed reasons for uninviting him, then you are going to have to defend yourself. If they had said: " Unfortunately Douglas Crackford will not attend the conference for unforeseen circumstances", we would not be in this outrage. If you are going to publicly shame someone and possible harm their career, you better have proof that he has done some very horrible things or comments. Listing a possible twitter message calling someone stupid does not sound like a reasonable cause too me. That is why we are voicing our concerns, and why hardly anyone here is agreeing with you.
- mcguire 10y ago
  The problem is that they stopped being private grievances when they were used to remove a speaker from a public conference. Way back in the good ol' days, this was exactly the sort of thing used to oppress the minorities: an unknown group of well-connected men would get together to black-ball someone for being the wrong sort of person, with no explanation, recourse, or accountability. Like I have said before: choose your enemies carefully; you become them. The faces may have changed, but the behavior hasn't.
- mzw_mzw 10y ago
  "They're free to invite and disinvite whoever they please. You're free to not attend." For the millionth time, this isn't about what people are legally allowed to do. This is about what it's right to do.

eli 10y ago

They're free to invite and disinvite whoever they please. You're free to not attend. I don't think airing private grievances will help anyone.

calgoo 10y ago
Yes but if you are going to give half-assed reasons for uninviting him, then you are going to have to defend yourself. If they had said: " Unfortunately Douglas Crackford will not attend the conference for unforeseen circumstances", we would not be in this outrage. If you are going to publicly shame someone and possible harm their career, you better have proof that he has done some very horrible things or comments. Listing a possible twitter message calling someone stupid does not sound like a reasonable cause too me. That is why we are voicing our concerns, and why hardly anyone here is agreeing with you.
mcguire 10y ago
The problem is that they stopped being private grievances when they were used to remove a speaker from a public conference. Way back in the good ol' days, this was exactly the sort of thing used to oppress the minorities: an unknown group of well-connected men would get together to black-ball someone for being the wrong sort of person, with no explanation, recourse, or accountability. Like I have said before: choose your enemies carefully; you become them. The faces may have changed, but the behavior hasn't.
mzw_mzw 10y ago
"They're free to invite and disinvite whoever they please. You're free to not attend." For the millionth time, this isn't about what people are legally allowed to do. This is about what it's right to do.