You've cherry picked, as usual. "In what possible universe dropping that hammer threat from the ’20% off” email thread, then following up with a Game of Thrones youtube clip is alright?"
"In an ideal world, that power would entail corresponding duties: care and consideration in your actions at least." "That kind of behaviour is inappropriate for a board member... If you don’t see this, we do indeed have bigger problems." You seem to suffer from double standards, in the wrong direction. Far more offensive language from a board member is completely justifiable by nothing by frustration <https://twitter.com/jimjag/status/794616571079626753>. >From somebody wronged by a board member, however, an expression of their experience with far less incendiary language is completely inexcusable, and obviates the rest of a message. On 6 November 2016 at 17:33, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > "well written, cogent and on-topic" ... "reasoned rebuttal" > > You keep on using those words. I don't think they mean > what you think they do. Some data points: > > o " A lot of extra power, like it or not (I have a feeling you quite > like it, though)." > o "you are being hotheaded, impulsive, antagonising, and immature." > o "in what possible universe" > o "Frankly, it wouldn’t be appropriate for a greeter at Walmart" > > So if the above warrants what you consider well-written, cogent, > on-topic and reasoned, then I fear that any further discussion > is really worthless. > > o+o > > > On Nov 6, 2016, at 11:24 AM, Benedict Elliott Smith <bened...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > Jim, > > > > I would love it if you could take the time to explain how arrived at a > diagnosis of trolling. > > > > Aleksey made a well written, cogent and on-topic criticism of your > ongoing behaviour, as well as a reasoned rebuttal of your absurd claim that > your power is inherent to you, not your position (I don't think many people > know who you are, only what you are). > > > > It was explicitly the topic of discussion, and there is mounting > evidence of your misbehaviour. This is the very definition of discussion, > not trolling. > > > > Much like your "chess" comment, this appears to be an attempt to shut > down substantive discussion of your unsuitability for the role of board > member. > > > >
