Re: [OT] Re: Troll Tech [was Re: Sco vs. IBM]

[Timothy Miller <miller@techsource.com>]

I've removed Larry from the To list due to his earlier request.

My opinion is this:  If you think you're going to be so great at running 
a business, please go do so and let us know how it goes.


Robert White wrote:
> Stephen,
> 
> So given this responsibility he has chosen to take, that you admire, and
> that I have no aspirations towards because I already know it isn't an area I
> will do well in...
> 
> Is it responsible for him to pose a question about the source and nature of
> innovation and then reply to the feedback he receives with "you've never run
> a business so why should I listen to you"?
> 
> Is it responsible to start with the assumption that business is innovation
> and non business is, by definition, *not* innovation?  His position only
> makes sense if this founding position ("business is the sole source of
> meaningful innovation in software") is true.  He will entertain no dissent
> on that position no matter how many innovators claim otherwise.
> 
> I didn't offer advice on accounting practices, sales channels, or even the
> proper way to apportion funds or apportion effort.  I did not posit opinions
> on managing employees nor conserving costs.  I offered my specific view
> directly related to my specific experience in the field he was addressing.
> 
> I also took particular exception to receiving three emails that said
> (paraphrased), in order:
> 
> 1) I {Larry} glanced at what you wrote, who are you that I should care about
> your opinion.
> 
> (I respond to this reasonable request with the rough overview of my
> experience in software development and "innovation")
> 
> 2) You've never run a business so you will forgive me if I {Larry} don't pay
> any attention to anything you have said; I already know that I can only
> learn things relating to business by competing against better businessmen.
> (e.g. the "I play pool and..." message)
> 
> (which I totally let slide and was going to accept as an indication of a
> closed and pointless channel, but then, as a reply to a third party I
> get...)
> 
> 3) Exactly, I {Larry} consider all arguments no matter who poses them.
> 
> (which is directly belied by message two)
> 
> The rampant cupidity of the conflict between items two and three kind of set
> me off.  It is not reasonable nor rational nor, I suspect, an indication of
> the kind of businessman I would want to have domain over my capital.  It
> also exhausted all respect I felt towards Larry, about whom I had no prior
> opinion.
> 
> And then I started behaving badly... 8-)
>