5 ms·

I think it's because you agree with Baker's positions that you're more willing to not see her statements as in poor taste. On the other side where I am, it is

I think it's because you agree with Baker's positions that you're more willing to not see her statements as in poor taste. On the other side where I am, it is a bitch slap and a half. It is very clear to me that Baker actively detests Markham even past his death. That's fine. I also detest people that are long dead. But this blog post is not really something that I would call "good", it truly reads to me as a very bitter person goading about, not a final ribbing between friends. Don't treat something like this as 'remarkable', that's dulling the word.

caslon 3y ago
I think that you're actually the one who disagrees with Gerv; as he notes in his writings, a society where all views are seen as equally correct is bad. It's not wrong to draw a line and say, "This person is wrong about this," and it's not a sign of detesting someone; to quote him, distinctions have to be made. You are, ironically, the one completely disagreeing with him, pushing ideological diversity. I don't see the post as a "bitch slap" to him, despite more or less disagreeing with Mitchell's views, but it's probably a "bitch slap" to you.
- latency-guy2 3y ago
  > I think that you're actually the one who disagrees with Gerv I make no judgement on Markham's thoughts on the matter. If I am or not is probably the position you should take, but its not one I'm pushing here. Words presented by Baker are not words I would like from someone I respect, 8 days after my death, just enough tact to know not do it within the first week before the man is decaying in the ground, not enough to think about what people will think of the person that's still alive afterwards. > but it's probably a "bitch slap" to you. Yes, I state it as much, there is no statistical uncertainty here on my end. There is no allegations or false journalistic integrity to take credence to. The man is dead, there is no rebuttal. Baker took her final words and danced on his grave with it, figuratively, I can't be certain if she was in attendance or will be sometime in the future. > You are, ironically, the one completely disagreeing with him, pushing ideological diversity. If I am, then I suppose it. I'll leave this here as an address to your view here: > It's not wrong to draw a line and say, "This person is wrong about this," and it's not a sign of detesting someone Would you honestly say that someone being described in the following way is not a clear line: "Eventually Gerv felt called to live his faith by publicly judging others in politely stated but damning terms. His contributions to expanding the Mozilla community would eventually become shadowed by behaviors that made it more difficult for people to participate. But in 2001 all of this was far in the future." All he's done, shadowed?

caslon 3y ago

I think that you're actually the one who disagrees with Gerv; as he notes in his writings, a society where all views are seen as equally correct is bad. It's not wrong to draw a line and say, "This person is wrong about this," and it's not a sign of detesting someone; to quote him, distinctions have to be made. You are, ironically, the one completely disagreeing with him, pushing ideological diversity. I don't see the post as a "bitch slap" to him, despite more or less disagreeing with Mitchell's views, but it's probably a "bitch slap" to you.

latency-guy2 3y ago
> I think that you're actually the one who disagrees with Gerv I make no judgement on Markham's thoughts on the matter. If I am or not is probably the position you should take, but its not one I'm pushing here. Words presented by Baker are not words I would like from someone I respect, 8 days after my death, just enough tact to know not do it within the first week before the man is decaying in the ground, not enough to think about what people will think of the person that's still alive afterwards. > but it's probably a "bitch slap" to you. Yes, I state it as much, there is no statistical uncertainty here on my end. There is no allegations or false journalistic integrity to take credence to. The man is dead, there is no rebuttal. Baker took her final words and danced on his grave with it, figuratively, I can't be certain if she was in attendance or will be sometime in the future. > You are, ironically, the one completely disagreeing with him, pushing ideological diversity. If I am, then I suppose it. I'll leave this here as an address to your view here: > It's not wrong to draw a line and say, "This person is wrong about this," and it's not a sign of detesting someone Would you honestly say that someone being described in the following way is not a clear line: "Eventually Gerv felt called to live his faith by publicly judging others in politely stated but damning terms. His contributions to expanding the Mozilla community would eventually become shadowed by behaviors that made it more difficult for people to participate. But in 2001 all of this was far in the future." All he's done, shadowed?