> So you want to say, that there doesn't need to be a real reason anyway, it is just enough that a few other speakers have a problem with him. It doesn't even have to be made transparent what the problems actually is.
No, what I'm saying is you (and everyone else) aren't owed an explanation, and furthermore there are good reasons for not offering a public explanation.
> And that Crockford doesn't respond to this hypocritical nonsense is a kind of confession of guilt?
No, I'm acknowledging that this is a lot of frenzy being whipped up when the party directly affected by the decision hasn't released a statement questioning their motivation. He may have been given an explanation and has chosen not to make an issue of it for all you know. The only people seemingly angered by this decision are people who aren't affected.