Gah, I'm clearly tired, I can't even get subject-verb agreement right.

My point is, the discussion is about whether he was forced out by his employers.

His (past) employees are not his employers.

Sorry for the language difficulties, I'm going to bed now. :)

You're implying that Eich reports to the people who report to them?

Now there's a novel corporate structure!

I'm not suggesting I know one way or another, it's the folks saying "he was forced out" who seem to be insisting--as does the headline here.

That having been said, Eich doesn't make the claim he ws forced out by the board. Mozilla doesn't make that claim. Lilly, who resigned from the board before this ruckus because of Eich's appointment, says he resigned for reasons that had nothing to do with Prop 8, and doesn't appear to make that claim.

All I can see to support the claim that he was forced out by the board comes down to supposition and/or prejudice. Anything *could* be true, but I don't see any reason to find your explanation better than any other.

I'm not at OKCupid, (don't even have an account there anymore), but I totally agree with you about taking responsiblity for one's actions.

"Marriage is not a right...", says you.

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man", said the Supreme Court, in Loving v. Viriginia.

I'm afraid I'll take their opinions over yours.

What makes you think that people outside the company weren't as much or a greater influence?

Not from all accounts that have reached my ears, no.

"GLBT organizations have a perfect right to express their opinions,"

I'll be impressed if you can point at a signficant GLBT organization that actually did discuss Eich. As near as I can tell, the repsonse was entirely grassroots, and not limited to GLBT individuals.

Except that the statement followed the resignation.

So, if you're saying that Eich was psychic or had a time machine, and can prove that, you've made your case.

And, to my mind, the biggest point was not "how did you vote in 2008?" but "are you open enough to treating the people you intend to manage objetively, even if they are LGBT?"

Given his dodging about his feelings today, I'd suggest that even if he was forced out, the issue wasn't his vote, but instead, his ability to do his fucking job today.

I'm not going to acknowledge that.

If someone is on record as not only saying, but actively paying to support making sure a group of people enjoy fewer civil liberties than another, and that person's *job* is managing people, some of whom are in that group?

In that case, I don't think it's bigoted to question whether they are capable of perfoming that job well.

That's not bigotry. That's common sense.

And to heck with 2008, while we're at it. If his suport for treating people equally had changed in the past six years, he had more than enough opportunities, including the CNET interview less than 72 hours ago, to not directly avoid answering that question.

Ahh, cool! I'd just checked the Coast Starlight. Thanks!

I've done Seattle -> San Francisco Bay Area on Amtrak, and it was (by comparison with plane travel) nice. I'd thought that that route might extend to Vancouver, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

I'm sure some problems do happen because of cultural misunderstandings, but speaking as someone who grew up in the USA: the problems with the TSA are far more than cultural misunderstandings. I've had good experiences, to be sure, but some pretty horrible ones as well. I'll now drive half way across the country to avoid flying when it's possible, sadly that won't get me to many of the other places I need to get to.