[almeria]

It wasn't "embracing the outrage"; rather facing up to the fact that -- whatever the merits or lack thereof of his proposal -- the donor's language was intrinsically manipulative:

This windowless thing is just a bunch of crazy suppositions by an ignorant man.

At the end of the day, this just isn't the kind of person you want to sit down and do business with. No matter what dollar amount he's trying to jerk you around with.

[rkk3]

> whatever the merits or lack thereof of his proposal -- the donor's language was intrinsically manipulative

The architect caused a media-circus because he didn't agree with a tradeoff they made and he called him ignorant. You are here also making personal attacks calling him; a "Crank", "Toxic" "Bully"...

> this just isn't the kind of person you want to sit down and do business with.

Charlie Munger would probably top "a most desired business partner" lists...

[almeria]

He didn't merely call him "ignorant", but "crazy". Both are ad-hominem attacks. What I don't get here is why you're trying to soft-pedal this very obvious fact.

"Crank", "Toxic" "Bully"

Accurate and justified, in light of the aforementioned unprovoked attacks.

He just thinks that because he's a billionaire, he can get away with it.

[rkk3]

> Accurate and justified

I see so when you make ad-hominem attacks they are ok, but if you don't agree with someone & they make ad-hominem attacks they are a "toxic bully"

[almeria]

The situation is in no way symmetric. I think we can let it go at that.