3 ms·

> It's not for you to cross-examine me, though. You're right. And in this case, I wasn't. I responded to someone who said you were fired with an official state

by near 10y ago

> It's not for you to cross-examine me, though. You're right. And in this case, I wasn't. I responded to someone who said you were fired with an official statement that contradicted it. You joined into the discussion with, "you don't know and I don't have to tell you." Which is fine! In that case, I will continue to correct anyone who says you were fired by pointing to the only official statement on the matter that says you resigned voluntarily. Is that fair? Surely you can't blame me for not relying on secret information I don't know. > It's nonsense to make complex human interactions involving mobs, boycotts, hidden C-suite action, and finally resignation into an either/or in every single case. I'm definitely not making that claim in every case, only in this one case. I agree with your premise in general. > did Nixon resign? Of course. It was inevitable that he would have been impeached had he not. There was no indication that Mozilla did anything but stand behind you the entire time. I do understand the point you're trying to make here. But please understand that I can't hold Mozilla's board in contempt for something without any evidence or even statements on the matter. And you don't want to give them and that's fine. Just, as such, the record stands that you left of your own volition. > Can you not conceive of excluded middles left out by the two alternatives you pose as if mutually exclusive and exhaustive of all possibilities? No, I can't imagine a scenario where you were both made to resign, yet Mozilla was not lying when they said you left voluntarily. I am acutely aware that there was a huge reason for you to, even if I can't speculate that it had anything to do with your actual decision. But the protests and boycotts were a clear elephant in the room. Like you said with agency, you should have still had it despite the protests. The protestors had zero control over the Mozilla board. Yes, you staying could have damaged the brand more (I doubt it would have done much damage, but that's a separate discussion.) We're not making progress so let's try this from the other side: we both agree those calling for your firing were in the wrong, and should not have been listened to. I'll even go further and say it was wrong of sites like OK Cupid to use their site as a tool to boycott Mozilla by blocking your browser - as that forced their users into the boycott. But do you agree that the people voicing their displeasure with your donation and deciding not to use Firefox because you were made the CEO had a right to do so? Discounting the two things we both agree on (calls for firing, websites blocking Mozilla), what would you have wished were handled differently? What else do you feel was unfair? If secretly Mozilla led you to believe you would be ousted soon without resigning, then that would be on the board, and only the board, yes? And if that information remains secret, then we the public can't hold them accountable for that, can we? ... And as for me ... it seems we're never going to get past discussing a donation you made eight years ago. So when it inevitably comes up again that you were 'fired for your beliefs', how about this? I will respond that according to the only official statement from mozilla.org, you voluntarily resigned. I will then link to your discussions with me and state that you claim there are circumstances that are not public, and that people can make up their own mind on whatever that statement means from there. But again, that the only official record refutes their claim. Would you accept that? It's really not my goal to keep annoying you (or anyone else) here. I just don't want to see conjecture passed off as fact. Especially not on HN.

BrendanEich 10y ago
Word count is rising :-/. I will try to make it go down. > You joined into the discussion with, "you don't know and I don't have to tell you." No (and there you go again -- your paraphrase is incomplete and downright inaccurate). I commented (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12587142 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12587142) to link back to our previous HN exchange, because your comment up above (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12578451 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12578451) made claims that you cannot possibly back up! One example: "He could have stayed if he wanted to." You don't know that and can't really know it, so stop saying it. Do you see how you used the "He was fired!" refutation (which I refute all the time by saying I resigned) as carte blanche to go make unjustified assertions, inaccurate and incomplete paraphrases, and three other things? > I can't hold Mozilla's board in contempt Who asked you to hold anyone in contempt? Are you the judge now? And note the either/or again: either me, or them. No third or fourth alternative? Here are some more unjustified assertions or questions implying facts not in evidence that you've made: * "The protestors had zero control over the Mozilla board." * "...had a right to do so?" (totally irrelevant and I never said otherwise; when did you stop beating your spouse?) * "... we both agree on ...." (we haven't agreed on those and they're irrelevant again) * "What else do you feel was unfair?" (I never said "unfair", I'm here to object to you Making Stuff Up) Do you see what I mean? You're all over the map with unrelated and unjustified claims and questions implying I said things I never said. Just consider your "He could have stayed if he wanted to." Why'd you write that? I don't mean what you imagined or guessed or inferred predicated on assumptions or beliefs and nothing else. I mean what needs did it serve to say something you can't possibly know, as if it were an incontrovertible fact.
- near 10y ago
  > One example: "He could have stayed if he wanted to." You don't know that and can't really know it, so stop saying it. As I keep saying, the only publicly available evidence is that your resignation was voluntary. Voluntary implies optional. Optional implies you could stay. There's no leap of logic here. Yes, there could be behind-the-scenes NDAs and private events that meant you couldn't have. But unless you provide any shred of evidence, then I can't go on those. Imagine this like a court of law. Your vague hints of knowledge I am not privy to would be inadmissable evidence. Because of course it would be. > (which I refute all the time by saying I resigned) Well there you go! There's our answer. You weren't fired, you resigned. Right from the man himself :D > Who asked you to hold anyone in contempt? Who asked you who could get married and who couldn't? I have the right to hold any opinion I want about anyone. It's just an opinion; it has no authority. People in this thread are mad at Mozilla, claiming they fired you. If that is true, I want to join them in their anger. But I want evidence first. > No third or fourth alternative? Sorry, I'm not trying to be obtuse. I can't think of a third or fourth alternative. I'm not the brightest bulb out there, but I like to think I'm reasonably capable of imagining multiple possible scenarios. But I've got nothing here. > "The protestors had zero control over the Mozilla board." Come on, now you're just messing with me. Nobody here believes people on the internet shouting at you had the power to force Mozilla's board to act the way they wanted. It's a company, not an elected body. You yourself made that argument about oppression and agency. They may not have liked their options, but nobody held a gun to anyone's head and forced them to fire you. Even if keeping you meant burning the whole company to the ground, they still had full autonomy to make their own choice. Or are you going to go reductio ad absurdum and tell me that I don't (and can't) know if any protestors held a gun to your board members' heads? :P The rest ... fair enough. It seems I need to preface everything with "it's my reasonable assumption that ..." when speaking with you ;) > Just consider your "He could have stayed if he wanted to." Why'd you write that? If your resignation was voluntary, that implies you could have stayed. If you couldn't, it would thus not be voluntary. Because that is what the word voluntary means. It implies you made a choice. If you were saying you chose to resign instead of being fired, then you didn't make a choice, you were fired. Calling that a voluntary resignation is bullshit. > I mean what needs did it serve to say something you can't possibly know, as if it were an incontrovertible fact. Our basic communication breakdown here is that I am treating fact as "what's in the public record"; and you are treating fact as "you were actually there for it." Yours is obviously superior. But you won't share the latter with me, again which is fine! But if you don't do so, then don't blame me for treating the former as fact. It's no different than the way a court of law would treat it. I'm not being unreasonable here. I can't read the tea leaves and divine what really happened, nor can anyone else. That doesn't mean we can't ever talk about it. There are lots of unknowns in the world, and I am following the way reasonable people discuss and interpret those things as best they can.

by near 10y ago

BrendanEich 10y ago

Word count is rising :-/. I will try to make it go down. > You joined into the discussion with, "you don't know and I don't have to tell you." No (and there you go again -- your paraphrase is incomplete and downright inaccurate). I commented (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12587142 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12587142) to link back to our previous HN exchange, because your comment up above (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12578451 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12578451) made claims that you cannot possibly back up! One example: "He could have stayed if he wanted to." You don't know that and can't really know it, so stop saying it. Do you see how you used the "He was fired!" refutation (which I refute all the time by saying I resigned) as carte blanche to go make unjustified assertions, inaccurate and incomplete paraphrases, and three other things? > I can't hold Mozilla's board in contempt Who asked you to hold anyone in contempt? Are you the judge now? And note the either/or again: either me, or them. No third or fourth alternative? Here are some more unjustified assertions or questions implying facts not in evidence that you've made: * "The protestors had zero control over the Mozilla board." * "...had a right to do so?" (totally irrelevant and I never said otherwise; when did you stop beating your spouse?) * "... we both agree on ...." (we haven't agreed on those and they're irrelevant again) * "What else do you feel was unfair?" (I never said "unfair", I'm here to object to you Making Stuff Up) Do you see what I mean? You're all over the map with unrelated and unjustified claims and questions implying I said things I never said. Just consider your "He could have stayed if he wanted to." Why'd you write that? I don't mean what you imagined or guessed or inferred predicated on assumptions or beliefs and nothing else. I mean what needs did it serve to say something you can't possibly know, as if it were an incontrovertible fact.

near 10y ago
> One example: "He could have stayed if he wanted to." You don't know that and can't really know it, so stop saying it. As I keep saying, the only publicly available evidence is that your resignation was voluntary. Voluntary implies optional. Optional implies you could stay. There's no leap of logic here. Yes, there could be behind-the-scenes NDAs and private events that meant you couldn't have. But unless you provide any shred of evidence, then I can't go on those. Imagine this like a court of law. Your vague hints of knowledge I am not privy to would be inadmissable evidence. Because of course it would be. > (which I refute all the time by saying I resigned) Well there you go! There's our answer. You weren't fired, you resigned. Right from the man himself :D > Who asked you to hold anyone in contempt? Who asked you who could get married and who couldn't? I have the right to hold any opinion I want about anyone. It's just an opinion; it has no authority. People in this thread are mad at Mozilla, claiming they fired you. If that is true, I want to join them in their anger. But I want evidence first. > No third or fourth alternative? Sorry, I'm not trying to be obtuse. I can't think of a third or fourth alternative. I'm not the brightest bulb out there, but I like to think I'm reasonably capable of imagining multiple possible scenarios. But I've got nothing here. > "The protestors had zero control over the Mozilla board." Come on, now you're just messing with me. Nobody here believes people on the internet shouting at you had the power to force Mozilla's board to act the way they wanted. It's a company, not an elected body. You yourself made that argument about oppression and agency. They may not have liked their options, but nobody held a gun to anyone's head and forced them to fire you. Even if keeping you meant burning the whole company to the ground, they still had full autonomy to make their own choice. Or are you going to go reductio ad absurdum and tell me that I don't (and can't) know if any protestors held a gun to your board members' heads? :P The rest ... fair enough. It seems I need to preface everything with "it's my reasonable assumption that ..." when speaking with you ;) > Just consider your "He could have stayed if he wanted to." Why'd you write that? If your resignation was voluntary, that implies you could have stayed. If you couldn't, it would thus not be voluntary. Because that is what the word voluntary means. It implies you made a choice. If you were saying you chose to resign instead of being fired, then you didn't make a choice, you were fired. Calling that a voluntary resignation is bullshit. > I mean what needs did it serve to say something you can't possibly know, as if it were an incontrovertible fact. Our basic communication breakdown here is that I am treating fact as "what's in the public record"; and you are treating fact as "you were actually there for it." Yours is obviously superior. But you won't share the latter with me, again which is fine! But if you don't do so, then don't blame me for treating the former as fact. It's no different than the way a court of law would treat it. I'm not being unreasonable here. I can't read the tea leaves and divine what really happened, nor can anyone else. That doesn't mean we can't ever talk about it. There are lots of unknowns in the world, and I am following the way reasonable people discuss and interpret those things as best they can.