These aren't insinuations; they're direct factual claims. They're well-founded and they're either true or they're not. No, you can't just jazz-hands your way through this.
These aren't insinuations; they're direct factual claims. They're well-founded and they're either true or they're not. No, you can't just jazz-hands your way through this.
When you twist protective measures against ongoing theft or shitty proposals that went nowhere into a nefarious conspiracy to justify the theft of critical Ruby infrastructure, it’s time to take a hard look in the mirror.
What are you trying to achieve here, bringing up debunked insinuations over and over and over again? And haha no, going over every cherry-picked fact and half-truth you explicitly stated doesn’t prove you aren’t making insinuations.
> insinuate: to impart or suggest in an artful or indirect way
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insinuated
Note the word "indirect."
Now, are you using that to justify the hostile takeover of critical infrastructure to the entire Ruby community? I'm baffled. RC did a *hostile takeover*. How many times do I have to repeat this?
And why are you ignoring that RC did a hostile takeover of the repos? Again, RC stole the repos. What do you think of that?
I don't know what happened with "the repos", is why I haven't offered an opinion about it. I have a professional interest in stories about people gaining unauthorized access to accounts. I assure you, the law doesn't weigh one party's transgression against the other the way you suggest it should.
And you know what? I think you're right! What Andre did could constitute a crime. Any serious organization would lawyer up and go after him... right? RIGHT?
What sort of monetisation?
Asking because there's a huge potential range of options there, from pretty innocuous stuff through to downright evil. :(
To me that seems like a good idea, not like a betrayal of trust as some people have been making out.