[tygorius]

>> Dave's writing was all about him. > So what? > ... not everybody saw what he wrote as particularly negative towards Marissa, and many (most) of us got that the real point he was making was contained at the very end of the original post, and were quite content to argue that point.

I disagree. I worked as a magazine editor for many years and I was a little shocked at the end, because the "real point" seemed like a sudden left turn out of nowhere. In my opinion his piece would have been more compelling if he'd left out the Marissa Mayer grievance bit and simply used the other story, the one of his post-acquisition realization that his contract naming him the Mac Strategy Guy didn't actually mean anyone would listen to him.

As written the "real point" was obscured. And I see the same pattern in his response post: Relating some story about being misunderstood and unappreciated followed by a face-saving rationale about a larger point. The intellectual points aren't about him, but the illustrative examples all scream "Can you believe these fools wouldn't listen to me?"

In the case of Mayer in particular it seemed a case of exhuming the horse skeleton to give it the proper public thrashing it deserved. I mean, he had one phone-conference with her a decade back and he can now see into her soul and know "At the core she cares not one bit what the users of Tumblr think"? Seriously?