| > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11341285 What is this? Is this supposed to be a point you made that I didn't respond to? This doesn't appear to be a thread I participated in, this appears to be a distant cousin at best to any exchange I'm part of. > Your claim of misremembering is vacuous. I never claimed Bob called Azer a pussy. It's strongly implied by: > How does one non-NPM user [...] get to harass an actual NPM user [...], in violation NPM policy [...]? Is it OK to start referring to people as pussies in emails to them if they don't give up their names? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11383607 Was that just a non-sequitor? > Just so we are clear, I never said that. [...] Your hypothetical is baseless as kik was not... > Would Alice's additional emails be spamming and harassment?
In your hypothetical? It would appear so.
I thought it was pretty clear "your hypothetical" referred to my Alice vs Monsanto allegory, not kik.But I really don't care what you didn't say. I'm trying to understand what you ARE saying. I'm trying to understand your notion of harassment. If someone illegally fucks you over, and you email them asking them to stop, and they ask you not to email them again (about them fucking you over), is it harassment to try one last time to reason with them, and CC them when escalating the situation? > If you believe otherwise, you'll need to produce a quote. While I very much appreciate that you're engaging with me, I'm under no impression that you're obligated to do anything. I hope you realize that goes both ways. > kik can't produce a Trademark. What leads you to believe this? Because they haven't yet? Neither NPM nor Azer asked them to, why would they? > once Azer had made it clear that he wasn’t going to change the name, we decided to use a different name for an upcoming package we are going to publish to NPM. We did hope that Azer would change his mind, but we were proceeding under a different package name even when we were told we could have the name Kik. I'm not sure why you're quoting this, it doesn't say they don't want it, it says they're not using it for the package they're going to publish. No one is disputing that fact. Their stated reason for wanting the package name still applies, namely, avoiding confusion for people who install 'kik' expecting a package by them. |
>I'd love to hear more about that, but I hope you'll forgive me for distrusting your memory seeing as you seem to have misremembered Bob saying he doesn't mean to be a dick as Bob calling Azer a pussy [0].
The thread I linked to was in response to the above ^. There (in the link) is more about it. I believe the claims were made on Twitter and the Tweets have likely since been deleted.
>> Your claim of misremembering is vacuous. I never claimed Bob called Azer a pussy.
>It's strongly implied by:
>> How does one non-NPM user [...] get to harass an actual NPM user [...], in violation NPM policy [...]? Is it OK to start referring to people as pussies in emails to them if they don't give up their names?
>Was that just a non-sequitor?
No, it is not a non-sequitor. The problem is with Bob's language. The language violates the Code of Conduct, but was tolerated by NPM. If NPM tolerates that language, they should also tolerate the word 'pussy', or a derivative, being used, however, my guess would be that NPM would backpedal on their tolerance if a Dispute ever arose containing that word.
>But I really don't care what you didn't say. I'm trying to understand what you ARE saying. I'm trying to understand your notion of harassment. If someone illegally fucks you over, and you email them asking them to stop, and they ask you not to email them again (about them fucking you over), is it harassment to try one last time to reason with them, and CC them when escalating the situation?
My notion of harassment isn't really pertinent. Further, we are talking about a synthetic hypothetical (where it is already accepted that "someone [is illegally fucking you over]" [honestly not sure what this means]), which makes the discussion rather moot.
Bob never tried to reason with Azer. When Azer finally responded to Bob about "is there something we could do for you in compensation", Bob never responded, but kept whining to NPM.
Bob was completely disingenuous the entire time. Note his second email to Azer after Azer asked to not be e-mailed again:
> I don’t know why you think that makes us a dick.
Bob can't even comprehend his own text. Bob literally opened his second email with:
>We don’t mean to be a dick about it, but
Then Azer called him out for being a Dick and Bob has no idea why Azer could possibly think him and kik Interactive are dicks? The guy is a top troll.
> kik can't produce a Trademark.
>What leads you to believe this? Because they haven't yet? Neither NPM nor Azer asked them to, why would they?
That and I have looked up all Trademarks for "kik" and none of them would apply in this situation. If Azer was "fucking kik over illegally", Bob would be able to prove it beyond a shadow of doubt by showing the specific Trademark that he claims is being infringed. It's trivial, yet he didn't do it. Why would that be?
>I'm not sure why you're quoting this, it doesn't say they don't want it, it says they're not using it for the package they're going to publish. No one is disputing that fact. Their stated reason for wanting the package name still applies, namely, avoiding confusion for people who install 'kik' expecting a package by them.
Unfortunately this contradicts Bob's first email:
>Azer: We’re reaching out to you as we’d very much like to use our name “kik” for an important package that we are going to release soon. Unfortunately, your use of kik (and kik-starter) mean that we can’t and our users will be confused and/or unable to find our package.
And Mike Roberts' side:
> In fact, once Azer had made it clear that he wasn’t going to change the name, we decided to use a different name for an upcoming package we are going to publish to NPM. We did hope that Azer would change his mind, but we were proceeding under a different package name even when we were told we could have the name Kik.
Edit: From the previous post (sorry, but I actually don't want to debate every fine point of this story, at least not on HN [terrible interface]):
>They went through a lot of trouble to get it, what leads you to believe they don't want it? At the very least they explicitly say they want it to avoid confusion for people expecting a package by them.
The fact that the package remains unused by kik Interactive. [0]
[0] https://www.npmjs.com/package/kik