History of what's' been going on
I had a little battle in the recent past with [Name-Deleted].
It seems that [Name-Deleted] felt that it was his god given right to tell Apple how to run their business, and criticize them constantly in the "name of love". He felt it was OK to stick his nose in their business, and criticize the company, the individuals in the company, harm almost everyone associated with the company, and to just be a know-it-all jerk. (I can respect know-it-all jerks, if they really do "know-it-all" -- he does not). I decided that a taste of that (in return) was long overdue, and wrote an article about him (all truthful and accurate to the best of my knowledge) titled [Article Title Deleted].
His response was to write an article saying that I got some dates wrong -- when I never mentioned dates (just time lines). I would give you the URL, but the article has been altered in a pathetic attempt to rewrite history.
I responded (by explaining what my point had been), and mentioned the dates and time-line as I remember them. This article available is at - [Article2 Title Deleted]. His corrections were in error - twice; once for missing the point, the other because he had gotten his dates wrong. Many others emailed me that this was not the first time that [Name-Deleted] had revised history to suit his needs. I commented on the flood of email I was getting -- (supporting my opinions of this guy ). I noticed that almost all the mail I received seemed to point out the same thing -- that he had pissed off almost Everyone in the entire industry (if my email was an accurate sampling).
Then I started getting CC'ed (courtesy copied) by some people sending email to [Name-Deleted]. Some were older complaints that people had with this person, and had little to do with me (they were just looking to commiserate). Some eMails were nasty, some not -- many felt that my psychoanalysis explained his motivations and actions.
I sent [Name-Deleted] email apologizing for the nasty-grams (trying to diffuse the situation). I was not trying to start a spam or hate-mail campaign -- just express my opinions. I still felt everything I said was true, but did not intend him to be blasted in email.
He responded that if I really meant my apology, that I'd delete my article. I explained that time is linear, and you can't take things back -- and you shouldn't "take back" things that you mean. I was offering an apology for the reaction, but NOT a retraction for what I had been said (which was the truth -- IMHO). He suggested we talk on the phone, so I sent my phone number and we talked.
He was very insulted at the whole concept of me "getting in his business" -- yet he refused to see any relationship between me doing it to him, and him doing the same to Apple (or its employees). I realized I was not going to get anywhere, and the stories of his massive self-centeredness were understated. So we agreed to disagree, and let the issue lie. He and I agreed we would NOT provoke each other, or attack each other any more. He sounded mature enough to be able to just "let it go".
I had achieved what I wanted (a reminder of what it's like to be on the receiving end of bad analysis -- the difference between mine and his being that at least mine was accurate, just non flattering observations). I was less vitriolic in my response than he was in his many years of bashing, but I was willing to call it "even". He had made himself into a public figure, and needed to learn a little responsibility (IMHO). I don't like doing this stuff, I just feel it is sometimes necessary (1). I don't want my site turning into some hate fest trying to correct all the egomaniacs or blow-hards in the world. There are more of them than me, so I would lose.
What that means is that when someone is not using control (failing to understand the ramifications of their power), someone else had to spar with them, and reflect the same amount of control that they used. If the person without control escalated; then the goon had to reflect that, until at some point the controlless ones' brains kicked in (or got kicked in) over the protests of their ego. They had to learn that it wasn't worth it -- or more instruction would be dangerous to society. The poor goon had to take the pain of sparring with someone who had no understanding of his power -- the goon had to do what no one wanted to do, which was harm someone (by reflecting what was directed at him or others).
The lesser student, at first, blamed the goon, not realizing that they were only a reflection of themselves (but better at it). Eventually, most would catch on (though it often takes a few tries), those that wouldn't learn would leave. It was not pleasant duty (because everyone loses in a fight). Whether the controlless one learns or leaves, the class is better for it.
That is how I feel dealing with
many of the so called "journalists" who are just bashers in
disguise, who are not able to get over themselves or over
past "wrongs." I must
respond, because it is my duty to the
class (as I see it). I don't enjoy it, and in fact it makes
my Web Site a much less pleasant place than I would have it
otherwise. But it has to be
My point was made, and I was ready to let it all go (as agreed). Just drop the topic, point made. Let it rest.
That was until other things kept "coming up."
First [Name-Deleted] went and changed his response to me, so that it read "[SITE NAME DELETED]". He stated this was because he didn't want to validate me or my site. Petty. I have returned the "favor" in this article as a satire of that immaturity. Not exactly "letting it go"... then more happened.
Carl gets Screwed
Someone named Carl expressed his opinion to [Name-Deleted]. I got Carl's letter sent to me from [Name-Deleted] telling ME to deal with the hate that I created. Excuse me, but the response was to the actions of [Name-Deleted] - not me. (I started corresponding with Carl anyway, trying to diffuse things.) What happened next was the most petty, cowardly thing I have heard of on the internet to date.
Carl's writing style is vague -- but the email was a short was a semi-constructive, semi-flaming letter, and could easily be taken multiple ways. Instead of responding to Carl, or ignoring the mail, instead of assuming the best and giving Carl the benefit of the doubt -- instead of taking the "high road," (as [Name-Deleted] hypocritically tells other to do); someone's ego was so huge or anger so strong (at anyone that challenges or questions him), that he felt he must email that persons BOSS (actually the CEO of the company) in an obvious attempt to have Carl fired! Imagine attacking someone's livelihood because they disagree with you -- all while telling everyone you value free speech! That was the low-road.
Then the private email was sent out to a large, public, international mail list ([Name-Deleted] told me 130,000 people, but I find that unlikely) -- which generated lots of mail to Carl. Not a nice thing to do. Carl had not started a spam campaign, nor even acted in one -- he just expressed his opinions based on an article he read.
Then Carl's letter was posted publicly at ATTACKS, and torn apart and misrepresented. Carl had no way to respond. In that article, it was implied that there was an "organized campaign" to attack poor [Name-Deleted]. (Of course nothing was further from the truth, but how do you convince the paranoid that "they aren't all out to get you!"?)
This whole attack was really directed at me (by harming someone else). I know this because of the nastygrams I kept getting from [Name-Deleted], telling me so and pointing to the URL.
Carl pleaded to me to post his side of the story, since he does not have a web site to air his side of the story. I had said to [Name-Deleted] that I would not attack more -- but that was also per agreement that we would BOTH just "let it go." I pondered this for a while, not want to escallate things, but then the other events of this article came down (read on). After all these other issues, I knew I had to offer Carl a place to air his grievances, and comment on the events that had transpired (this article).
Carl's full transcript of his side of the story is available here - Carl's Saga.
I tried many other solutions, before resorting to this, but could find none.
I asked for [Name-Deleted] to apologize for what he did to Carl, and admit that it was wrong. To "back off" and let him be. He was harming Carl out of misdirected anger at me (or Apple). I was responded to with a curt response along the lines of "It's legal, besides -- what software have you written for the Mac". Like shipping commercial Software is justification for being a complete asshole! Just because a guy writes one or two good programs (or has others do it for him), does not make him an expert on everything, nor forgive him his sins.
A personal friend (Mark Murphy) had been separately communicating with [Name-Deleted] about what was being done to Carl. (Mark initiated this on his own, and told me about it afterwards). I was observing, and hoping that an outside party would help [Name-Deleted] to "see the error of his ways". It did not. That correspondence is at the end of this article; [Name-Deleted] proves that he never thinks he is wrong (nor will admit it when he is).
I do not miss that point at all. I just don't think that loving parents, brothers or friends should throw rocks like vandals, and camouflage those actions as "love". I believe that [Name-Deleted] does care for Apple. But my response is as follows -
Notice that unlike [Name-Deleted], I do not post the authors name and email address, nor do I call their employer and complain. I only quote some of their letter. I also do not make any efforts to twist their words, or interpret their meaning. (I also took the least "jabbing" quotes). Which is the higher road?
History gets revised
Instead of "letting things go", as agreed upon, [Name-Deleted] rewrote his response to me. This altered work was camouflaged as a "dove of peace" Response to MacKiDo, but really just an excuse for masturbation, and a plea for pity. It talked about "supporting others" -- yet I see no support of Apple or the Mac. It talks of "brotherhood," -- yet during this same time, poor Carl was learning what brothers sometimes do to brothers, in [Name-Deleted]'s book of brotherhood. I saw the words, but not the deeds -- and in fact I saw hostility directed towards Apple, myself, and Carl! I see no "working together" when one person can't let something go, keeps sending me email trying to argue points that we agreed to drop, or writes and edits articles on that same topic. But I would have ignored the response, even though THIS link was sent to me with yet ANOTHER nasty letter from [Name-Deleted]... but there's more.
Then yet another article was directed towards me. MovingIntoTheFuture. Not a bad article (in words), if you overlook the self egrandizing and whiny tone to it. (A major point of my original article, that started all this, was that this person is self egrandizing and whiny). The words sounded nice, but I do not judge a man on what he says; I judge a man on what he DOES! Saying you are "moving on", while not behaving that way, does NOT convince me. Saying that you love and support Apple or the Mac, while having your name in Every other trash piece against them does not convince me either. Saying "you support the Mac, but you are porting to Windows because MS is so benevolent, while Apple is stupid," is not a way to convince anyone that you believe what you are saying. It is not the porting that is wrong, it is the way the message is delivered.
As for the foofy love-fest part of these articles?! I learned of them through nastygrams from [Name-Deleted], saying --
Sound to me like someone needs some Prozak! Certainly the private words to me, were far different than the "public image" this person was trying to project. The articles were camouflage for the truth (nor reflections of it). His personal digs in private conversations and email were not what he was expressing publicly. What am I supposed to think about this duplicity?
Does that sound like someone who lets things go? It does not to me. Every action I have seen, and all the people I hear, support what I said all along. They all have stories to tell, but I don't think my sites purpose is to bash [Name-Deleted], but I will respond when I feel I have to. I could turn my site into a whole site of testimonials AGAINST [Name-Deleted], or a self-worship site where I post my own emails -- but I have better things to do.
However, I will not stand by and let a Web-Bully prey on those who have no defense (Carl), without at least protesting about it, and letting the other side express their views (especially when Carl attack was in proxy, directed at me).
Instead of letting go, there were immature reactions. Lashing out, and attempting to harm a relative innocent (Carl). Then a pathetic attempt to play "poor" martyr and generate sympathy with such stuff as mentioning grandparents flight from Nazi's. Poor [Name-Deleted] was being attacked for his love of Apple, and for being the only one to say anything. (I hear violins). Of course there were already thousands of reporters (and millions of people) bashing on Apple, and he was being attacked because what he was saying was wrong!
I extended the branch of peace in an email (first). I tolerated personal jabs and insults in a phone conversation (without response). I tolerated self-stroking articles (directed to me) about "self love and self-worship" that claimed to take the high road. I got surly eMails sent to me from [Name-Deleted], who agreed we should "let it go.", but refused to do so. I saw innocents (relatively) attacked out of spite and revenge, way beyond what was called for -- in the name of "peace and the high road".
Since agreeing to "let it go", I have done NOTHING. Yet [Name-Deleted]'s millionaires ego can't let it go. He can't admit he is wrong, when he so obviously IS. He has to hurt and attack, and prod me until I respond -- while trying to play friend or "big man" in the public's eye. If someone tells me they "offer their hand in friendship", then they try to bite mine when I extend it -- I don't get a good feeling of sincerity (maybe it's just me).
Letting go is not trying to generate allies and sympathy on your page, or by playing martyr or philosopher (he's a hypocrite at one, and the other he's just bad at). No article was necessary to BE the bigger man, the only reason to write his article was to PLAY LIKE you're the bigger man. It was just insulting. If he was the bigger man, he would have let this go, and let go of his resentment of Apple and its employees because of what happened 7 years ago!
I understand escalation. I understand ego. I tolerate a lot in the name of "letting things go" and letting someone save face. Just to move on. But how long must this go on before I respond?
[Name-Deleted] would rather blame me, than think about his actions, and this response. He accused me and my site of being just a bunch of evil mindless hate mongers "like Guy Kawasaki and the evangelists." I think that Guy and the evagelista's are nothing of the sort, nor are the patrons of my site. (But for the record, I do not currently subscribe to evangelist). We are DEFENDING what we believe in from attacks. I tried to deal with this person, but he is so egocentric that he can't see where anyone else is coming from -- nor does he see that what he did to Carl was not only unfair and mean spirited, but it violated every rule of netiquette, and verified EVERYTHING I had said about him (and more). [Name-Deleted] could only talk about the higher path -- not actually follow it. His deeds show his true persona.