No, I did not
by Volker Weber
I love messages like these:
Hi, something even YOU probably don't know yet: xx just resigned from IBM, effective the nnth. He will be the new ...
And in this case, I am going to keep this secret. :-)
Update: It's not a secret anymore.
Comments
Hey, it's not me....or Alan!
Give us a hint, at least. :-)
It isn't Mike either. Although I have been asked a couple of times. :-)
@Ed, well if it was one of you it'd be both...
Keeping people's secrets -- truly keeping them -- means not dropping bullshit hints like that. If the person in question is truly a friend of the person chatting with you, that message wouldn't have gone your way.
If it were me with the secret information, I most definitely wouldn't even hint at it until the very same person who had given me the news either personally told me it was ok to talk about about -- or else spoke of it in public his/her self.
Hi, something even YOU probably don't know yet: xx just resigned from Microsoft, effective the nnth. He will be the new ...
Pull out the stick, Andrew. It works for every single company. Especially at the end of the year.
Vowe- I wasn't referring to your post.
Oh how deliciously clever. A dropped hint of some juicy gossip and a comment that calls into question whether it's real or fabricated. I've never seen that before!
@Andrew - Since this is not a blog how could there be a post to refer to?
Let me be more clear. I am disgusted by someone that _____ confided in going almost immediately to Volker with a teasing statement like that. Especially given that Volker has made clear on several occasions that he doesn't want to be told things he can't pass on.
That Volker then wrote a this bit of classical literature on this Pulitzer worthy deep investigative news outlet he runs here (which is not a blog of course), is not at issue -- though it makes the best case for calling it a blog that I could possibly come up with. ;-)
Andrew, thanks again for explaining what "Andrew being Andrew" means. You are basing your condemning judgement on almost zero informatiom, but instead on your interpretation of what has happened. And as usual, I am not here to set you straight.
If you are looking for irony in my origianl posting, please stop. There isn't any.
Jeepers, is 2008 going to be another touchy year in the Lotus world? I hope not; it gets tired very quickly.
As for ”Ceci n'est pas un blog”, how many times does it have to be explained? ;o)
Well, here's your hint :-)
Wow Ben. I completely do not understand that explanation. I suppose I could take the trouble of finding either a dictionary of a modern art course, but frankly I can't bring myself to do either right now.
I've thought about this more. "Andrew being Andrew" doesn't excuse or explain anything. Andrew calls it like he sees it, and finds personal accountability to be paramount.
What does calling it like I see it mean in this context?
1. Obviously, Rocky told someone something in confidence.
2. Obviously, one of the people he told chatted with you about it within hours of his being told. That stinks, and I said so. I'd say it again.
3. You posted a teaser about it. You can say what you like, but if your honest you'll admit that it includes a fairly smug reference to having information about someone that many others do not. Sort of 'reverse name dropping'.
All this accomplished was to get more people talking about who it might be, which in the end -- while not obvious -- just increased the chance of people finding out. It could have made things very difficult for Rocky, had his goal (or had IBM asked him) to keep things quiet until after LS.
So, in this case, "Andrew being Andrew" means seeing potentially destructive, smug, gossip and calling it just that. In terms of my having zero information -- well, I suppose I'll leave it to you to assume what I did or did not know. If I did know, I sure wouldn't have told.
As to the meaning of ”Ceci n'est pas un blog” -- there I will admit to misunderstanding the point of the tagline. I will further admit, that having been directed to the reference has not helped me truly understand how it relates here. Perhaps I simply don't see the rather obvious forced irony in the artwork as being particularly clever. Perhaps because I don't have the contextual references into which it fits.
Andrew, you’re smart, funny and very likable so please don’t take my advice the wrong way: you’re thinking too much about this stuff. Put it in context and move on to the next big thing :o)
Thinking Andrewish here myself. I don't think, such postings are doing any good to anyone - regardles of beeing a blog or not.
