[daniel_solano]

Whether or not the talk was politically motivated, if this article is correct about what the speaker did as a result of rejection, the speaker is an attention-seeking demagogue that uses threats and deception for self-promotion.

[thaumaturgy]

...or, the speaker is simply passionate about a topic that he believes needs to be discussed as openly as possible.

Aren't you now committing the same mistake of guessing the speaker's motivations as everyone who criticized TED?

[daniel_solano]

Perhaps, and I accept that it is possible that the facts as stated in the article are wrong. However, if we accept them as true, the speaker:

1. Hired a PR firm in an attempt to threaten TED into publishing his talk. 2. When that failed, he misrepresented TED (by selectively quoting private correspondence) to the media in order to create the subsequent firestorm.

I will accept that the speaker may be passionate about his views. However, he is not interested in open discussion, at least not if you mean honest by open. The ends does not justify the means.

[daenz]

> However, he is not interested in open discussion, at least not if you mean honest by open.

How do you conclude that? The only possible dishonesty I've seen is about how the talk was handled, not the content of the talk. He seems all for open discussion of the content of the talk.

[daniel_solano]

Well, it's not something that I have definitely concluded, but in my opinion, the speaker has lost significant credibility. If someone is willing to lie and bully in order to voice a particular opinion, why should I not expect them to lie or bully in trying persuade me to that opinion? No, it isn't a given, but that's the way I see it.

[tomjen3]

Always assume malice.

I know it goes against the conventional wisdom, but in subjects such as politics I haven't been wrong about it yet.

[billpatrianakos]

Well it might not be technically okay or PC to say this but if you listen to the guy's talk I'm sure you'll get the egotistical tone. Egotistical is too strong a word but he very much seemed to like calling attention to himself. Specifically I'm talking about his self introduction where he talks about the dozens of businesses he started or helped start as well as the way he really enjoyed throwing in the thing about "job creators" being not far from "The creator". Plus there were a smattering of references to himself scattered throughout.

Based on the transcript alone my argument can be pretty weak but anyone with at least one perceptive bone in their body can see what I saw if you watch the video. I agree that no one can know a person's motivations for sure and I feel like a hypocrite for doing it myself but in some cases it's just obvious. There's more to this than just what he says, watch his body language and listen to his delivery.

I actually have experience with people like this. I often give talks to different community groups and schools and such on the topic of teen drug abuse along with a father who lost his son to an overdose. This man agrees to speak whenever asked and claims to do it for the good of the youth in our community but once he starts speaking you can easily tell his intentions have shifted and his cause has now become about him instead of educating the audience. The content of his talks are definitely educational but he always gets off the subject and pats himself on the back for some great thing he did which was related to the topic but unnecessary to say along with some heavy name dropping. This TED speaker reminded me of the guy I often talk with. (Now, does ending my commend with a personal anecdote make my comment all about me now? Haha)