[prododev]

Sure you do. The poster was polite, got an extremely rude response, and has no obligation to be polite afterwards.

Airing their shit out is a disclosure of a vulnerability, and it's important to do. Typically you reach out to say, "how would you prefer I do this?" And work through a common understanding. The company flipped the bird, so it got aired very publicly.

[DangitBobby]

I can call myself a bicycle but I don't have any wheels.

Their behavior when things don't go their way belies their initial "politeness". When the transaction didn't go how they wanted, they pulled the trigger on being a dick, publicly. That is a much worse offense that an impolite email. If this were a coworker or a contractor, it would color all of my interactions with them going forward.

[grayhatter]

> they pulled the trigger on being a dick, publicly. That is a much worse offense that an impolite email.

brain dead take; the article was impolite, the email was an overt threat by an impotent exec *in response to someone trying to help*!

Dang it bobby, it's not worse to respond to respond to asshattery (the email) with irreverent sunlight (the article).

I also wouldn't call you a bicycle because you're not going anywhere with this attitude. The CEO got a gift, and the author got a middle finger. No matter what happens after, the CEO without a doubt shot first. And shot someone just trying to help. He can get fucked, and anyone defending him can join in too.

[DangitBobby]

I'm not defending him so much as advocating for understanding, grace, transparency, and de-escalation. You of course are welcome to conduct yourself in the ways that you see fit.

[grayhatter]

> I'm not defending him so much as ...

Nah, it's clear to me that you're defending the CEO, and blaming the researcher. In a manner that's as you state is just my opinion, is inverse from what justice would be.

[DangitBobby]

Wild how I can state my intentions and then someone would just not believe me.

But seriously, it's not possible for me to frame how the researcher could improve future probability of success without framing it from the CEOs perspective. To do that I must recognize he is a human person with his own internal motivations for his behaviors, which likely are not so much monstrous as childish.

[grayhatter]

Your other comments across the larger topic refute your claimed good intentions. It's not that wild that no one would believe you, when you contradict yourself.