4 ms·
> So you want to say, that there doesn't need to be a real reason anyway, it is just enough that a few other speakers have a problem with him. It doesn't even h
by knucklesandwich 10y ago
> So you want to say, that there doesn't need to be a real reason anyway, it is just enough that a few other speakers have a problem with him. It doesn't even have to be made transparent what the problems actually is.
No, what I'm saying is you (and everyone else) aren't owed an explanation, and furthermore there are good reasons for not offering a public explanation.
> And that Crockford doesn't respond to this hypocritical nonsense is a kind of confession of guilt?
No, I'm acknowledging that this is a lot of frenzy being whipped up when the party directly affected by the decision hasn't released a statement questioning their motivation. He may have been given an explanation and has chosen not to make an issue of it for all you know. The only people seemingly angered by this decision are people who aren't affected.
- tobltobs 10y agoI do not understand how banning people due to some unproved, anonym accusations will result in a more inclusive society. Actually it sounds like a surefire way to achieve the antipode.
- ralusek 10y agoAlmost everybody in the this community is affected by decisions like this.
- mdpopescu 10y agoI am offended by your claim that I haven't been affected by this!
- derefr 10y ago> No, what I'm saying is you (and everyone else) aren't owed an explanation Conferences are for-profit things, yes? Companies don't owe their customers anything, but if they don't give their customers anything, then customers don't have any reason to give the company their money. Or, to put that another way: a conference about Javascript that kicks out Douglas Crockford is pretty much in a default state from the moment they decide to do so of "so why should anyone attend this?" until they provide an explanation that serves to ameliorate the bozo-bit they just seemingly flipped.