I been around Matthias a long time and don't really see it. Perhaps Matthew can identify some examples that prove he's not the fragile flower he says he isn't?
Whether you agree with them or not, they are literally quoting TFA there.
> Why? It's not because I'm a fragile flower. I've navigated plenty of difficult people - LA lawyers, SF venture capitalists, et al.
Edit:
> What I don't understand is why they are asking for examples... that are literally in TFA.
Beats me, I'm just complaining about the spurious "belittling others" accusation.
> If the author was a 'fragile flower', would that make this described behaviour then acceptable?
Why are you asking me that and not moocowtruck? They're the one who implied it would.
> "Felleisen eventually swiveled his rage in my direction, verbally impugning my skills and qualifications, and suggesting that however bad things were, I would only make it worse. [...] Felleisen clearly took pleasure in demeaning and belittling me in front of this group."
If the author was a 'fragile flower', would that make this described behaviour then acceptable? Parent commentor is not asking "prove that there was an outburst of insults directed at you", they're asking "prove that you didn't fall apart because you are weak", and that seems pretty irrelevant - weak or strong people should be able to attend a conference by invite without being told by the organisers they are incompetent and will make everything worse, right?
(The use of the author's words in that context doesn't change much; imagine author: "before you say I'm a moron, I have built XYZ" going to commentor: "prove you aren't a moron?" - it's an insult, because the author used it in an insulting context while disclaiming its applicability)