Might I suggest you use the term "some gay people" instead? The term "gays" or "the gays" implies that gay people are more monolithic than they actually are.
-- John Karahalis Mozilla openjck.com ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Big Fred" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2014 8:06:59 AM > Subject: Re: aha, now I think I see > As I (and others) have already written, Eich was preserving his position in > the industry that will not tolerate any deviance from 100% support of > anything that gays want. > 13.04.2014, 14:17, "Wayne" <[email protected]>: > > On 4/12/2014 4:53 PM, Big Fred wrote: > > > >> You know, just before hitting send in replying to M Connor in another > >> thread, I decided to reread her reply and it finally dawned on me what > >> the Mozilla employees who are (most likely) volunteering to post here are > >> about... That'll take some thought to digest. But let me say for now that > >> what *we* see (and now hate) in Mozilla is what we see in mostly every > >> large Western institution these days: reverse-bigotry rules all. But what > >> *you* people see is the ideal. You don't feel that you're just working > >> for a company, you strongly identify with it. I certainly don't mean as > >> they do at google, either - where they haughtily (and very wrongly) see > >> themselves as the best and brightest. This is different. > >> > >> So, we see the principles, while you people seem to see the organization > >> as the embodiment of the principles. I'd say that Mozilla once was the > >> story of David vs Goliath, in the good way. But as of Eich's purging, > >> Mozilla has become the bad way: where the supposedly "oppressed minority" > >> is given the power to censor and destroy whoever it chooses without > >> regard to what's right or wrong. > >> > >> As I write this, the thought is spreading like a match dropped in a > >> forest: "Mozilla is that company that makes Firefox. They get rid of > >> anybody, even their founder, who doesn't kowtow to gays". Saying that "he > >> wasn't fired, he quit" won't change anything, and it shouldn't change > >> anything. > > > > Not having been present when these events occurred, it's certainly > > understandable that you might enterpret the events in that way. > > > > But if you spoke to Brendan and he said, "It was completely my choice. > > No one in Mozilla urged me to quit. And there was no pressure *from > > within Mozilla*", you wouldn't think differently? Wow! > > > > But those are the facts. As pointed out in > > https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignation/ > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
