[enjalot]

Am I the only one that interpreted as a light-hearted sarcastic remark? In the same interview he admitted to being very sarcastic when supporting key features of g+ I'd like to hear the audio to check out his inflection and the full context.

I was surprised by Vic ending with "that's why we didn't fire him." The thought of firing Yegge over a rant would signal extreme shortsightedness to me...

[bostonpete]

Well, others had discussed whether he'd get fired, but I think the consensus was that he wouldn't because it'd be a bad PR move.

However, I don't think it's correct to say that they would have been firing him "over a rant". They would have been firing him over a lengthy, detailed, public (intentional or not) criticism of the company that went after the most senior company executives by name.

I don't think he should have been fired, but I think something like that would be considered at least a "fire-able" offense at pretty much any company.

[0x12]

> but I think something like that would be considered at least a "fire-able" offense at pretty much any company.

Only for insecure managers.

[kragen]

It read to me like he was answering the question, "Why didn't you fire Yegge for posting this?"