| > 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. Okay then. > If NPM tolerates that language, they should also tolerate the word 'pussy', or a derivative, being used What? Your argument seems to be "if NPM tolerates this one word, they should also tolerate this other word." Why? Even if they were equivalent in offensiveness, the way you used the word and the way Bob used the word was fundamentally different. Calling someone a pussy is aggressive. It's understood to be an insult. Telling someone that you don't mean to be a dick is not insulting them. "Fuck" is arguably a worse word than either of these, but there are plenty of ways to use it that no one would call harassment. "I fucked up", for example. > My notion of harassment isn't really pertinent. I meant your interpretation of NPM's definition of harassment. Has it been unclear that that's been the core point of disagreement for our entire conversation? > "someone [is illegally fucking you over]" [honestly not sure what this means] I was very specific in the original statement. Someone is publishing your proprietary code under their name. > which makes the discussion rather moot. It's not moot, my point logically follows from it. > Bob never tried to reason with Azer. You seem to believe Azer has some kind of fundamental right to this name in the NPM package namespace. What could Bob have said that, in your view, would have counted as "trying to reason with" Azer? > Bob was completely disingenuous the entire time. See, when I think that, that's when I try to reconsider my take on a situation. I can't believe Bob woke up that morning, looked himself in the eye and decided to fuck over Azer. I think Bob was trying to release his open source project with his own company's name, was annoyed by Azer's curt response to his first request, and sent a pushy followup email. > That and I have looked up all Trademarks for "kik" and none of them would apply in this situation. I'm sure you have, jsprogrammer LLP. > It's trivial, yet he didn't do it. Why would that be? How about because no one asked him to? Because no one cares? > Unfortunately this contradicts Bob's first email Huh? It's perfectly consistent with "once Azer had made it clear that he wasn’t going to change the name, we decided to use a different name". Is there something about the timeline we're not agreeing on First, Kik wants to publish a package, they ask for the name 'kik' from Azer to minimize confusion. Then, Azer gives them the middle finger, Kik switches names so releasing their package won't be blocked on seeing how this thing with Azer shakes out, but continues pursuing the name 'kik' to minimize confusion. Finally, NPM transfers the name to Kik, but they don't bother switching back their package's name. Is that not their undisputed account of what happened? |
Further, the problem is not that Bob "d[id]n't mean to be a dick about it"; it is that despite Bob's well-meaning intention to not be a dick, he immediately reversed course with his next word, "but". So, Bob informs Azer that he doesn't mean to be a dick, then double slaps him with full-on dick-mode.
Like I said, a top troll.