This post is full of contradictions and vagueness. > Its[sic] not that he was wrong — he rarely was > He had good reasons, and he was more often right than no

This post is full of contradictions and vagueness. > Its[sic] not that he was wrong — he rarely was > He had good reasons, and he was more often right than not > He just stated his opinions as fact. It was clear that he saw the world in black or white — no gray areas — and we were all wrong. So the author agreed that he was right almost all of the time, but he should allow for gray areas? Makes no sense. Later on: > A funny thing happened almost immediately after he left: morale increased steadily and we actually began to meet our goals even faster with one less person on the team. But the "jerk" was always right and "slaughtered" the code reviews of his peers, so what kind of code were they producing to meet their goals? Maybe this guy was a jerk and didn't work well on the team, but it also sounds like the other people involved were terrible at their jobs and should either get re-educated or find another career.