> Thus, we usually have to write the name of the oil company as "Exxon", though its proper spelling is "e exx o n". (Don't make the mistake of pronouncing "Exxon" like "exon"; you will appear unsophisticated.)
So that's way off-topic. But what he says about "dox" vs. "doxx" is as much a preference as "focused" and "focussed", or "busing" and "bussing" - there's no "correct" way, not even if it is the original way.
Is Stallman a new William Safire or Brian Garner? I never knew this was one of his areas of expertise. Oxford lists "doxx" as an alternate but accepted version. I don't have an OED license so I dont have access to the full etymology they use.
It's simple: Dox is short for "docs". Shortening a 4-letter word to a 3-letter word is sensible (albeit lazy). Shortening a 4-letter word to a 4-letter word ("doxx") is stupid.
I don't know why people spell it with two. Maybe they think it looks cooler? But really it's hacker slang for "I accessed and published sensitive information about an individual" and is in most cases horrible.
Does he really think he can just imagine things, and then convince other people they are true?
Wikipedia says:
> The company initially planned to change its name to "Exon", in keeping with the four-letter format of Enco and Esso. However, during the planning process, it was noted that James Exon was the governor of Nebraska. Renaming the company after a sitting governor seemed ill-advised, and the second "x" was added to the new name and logo.
No mention of them wanting to name the company with a greek chi but not having that on their typewriters.
To be fair, the wikipedia claim isn't cited. Neither is rms's of course.
Convincing other people of things that are false is standard practice every April 1. I believe that whole Exxon article is an April Fool's joke.
...although looking at it more carefully, the doxing article is not dated April 1, and it has the same claim in it. Maybe he forgot what he was doing and successfully trolled himself. I don't know. But yes, the Exxon thing is obviously, demonstrably false.
Also, if I understand him right, he insists that the oil company Exxon is mis-spelling as well as mis-pronouncing it's own name, and he knows better. rms is an interesting guy.
The development of the Exxon exx is shown here:
http://www.logodesignlove.com/exxon-logo-raymond-loewy
It's clearly a double-x rather than any more exotic character, the styling is just that - styling.
The Wikipedia article has it as /ˈɛksɒn/ and that's the pronunciation used in their commercials:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_s80Hbac2b8
So that's way off-topic. But what he says about "dox" vs. "doxx" is as much a preference as "focused" and "focussed", or "busing" and "bussing" - there's no "correct" way, not even if it is the original way.