[jspthrowaway]

I'd say you've discovered a hefty dose of speculation that lacks any evidence.

You've also invented a false trichotomy. Those aren't Jeff's only three choices. The fourth one you left out is "make something new without shitting all over Markdown".

[brazzy]

> You've also invented a false trichotomy. Those aren't Jeff's only three choices. The fourth one you left out is "make something new without shitting all over Markdown".

And then everyone would criticize him for NIH syndrome and needlessly fragmenting the markup landscape further. And they would be right.

[brazzy]

What I'm saying is that we should not assume that there was no private conversation just because Atwood doesn't mention it.

[jspthrowaway]

That's precisely what we should assume, because it's the facts as presented. Inferring things that don't exist because they benefit the parties in question is a subtle undercurrent that drives the entirety of our fact-unfriendly blogosphere, tabloids, and so on. You sound a little like an apologetic Gawker reporter, here.

We were given the story at face value, we interpret it at face value. We don't make up what could have been nor consider it acceptable to do so.

[brazzy]

You're making something up as well if you assume Atwood intentionally did not contact Gruber beforehand. That is most definitely NOT interpreting the story at face value.