3 ms·

I never touched on the validity of the points he was making, only the god-awful nature of the discussion.

• michaelochurch 14y ago
  the god-awful nature of the discussion. It's amazing to me how, if I write a post that's 90% pro-Google and 10% critical, people who I have never met come out of the woodwork to get their flamewar on. I think they enjoy it. I don't. I'm over that stuff and I find it tedious.
  • rerere 14y ago
    If you were "over it," then I doubt you would be making dozens of comments in this thread about it. Protip: they're not laughing "with you" when you compare your managers to Osama bin Laden.
    • michaelochurch 14y ago
      I make "dozens of comments" because people I've never met come out of the woodwork to disparage me and they honestly have no idea what the fuck they are talking about. Saboteur is a better metaphor for the execs who came up with this shit than terrorist. They are maliciously destroying a company for amusement, but they're doing it from the inside. It's sabotage, not terrorism. That said, I wouldn't mind seeing the people who came up with the calibration-score and transfer-block nonsense at Google getting "a boot in [their] ass, it's the American way". Anyone who thinks it's morally acceptable to make political-success reviews part of the transfer packet deserves no less.