Many of us probably share the sentiment of 'pebcak', but lack the eloquence to phrase it so succinctly.
There is no apparent record of a "Harry Portobello" as an writer or reporter of anything. I assert that it is either a label he read off the bottom of his Walmart rug or some inside joke about moldy mushrooms. Yes, we know how to use the Internet. Scenario 1: There is no article. At some point, he was offended by a comment Thomas made or just didn't get the excessive hand-holding or contradictory features he felt he deserved. He has contrived this rather weak facade in an attempt to embarrass people or just fabricate the apology he feels he needs. As his ploy fails to work, he continues to reinforce the facade in order to prop up his fragile self-esteem and futilely try to save himself from the humiliation he sees approaching. Scenario 2: He imagines himself a reporter, even though he clearly does not have the tact and talent, and he is pissed because everyone isn't dropping everything to step forward because "there is a reporter in the room". Even if we cared what the press might say, just buying the hat doesn't make you one of them. Scenario 3: He is a counter-PR agent from who-knows-where with the task to discredit the project. There is possibly an article in mind, but not in the manner implied. Since we are a rather small group in the spectrum of projects to discredit, we are assigned a rather untalented assailant to attack the project. Scenario 4: Same as 3, but the point is disrupt the project internally by inciting disorder. In this case, a parent organization may or may not exist. I have posed this theory on a prior incident and would not be surprised if this incident involved the same person. As much as I enjoy the intrigue of #4, I would have to concede that #1 is clearly the most likely. I will encourage Thomas NOT to respond. I hope that we speak well enough for him. -- Jason Weber On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 3:11 AM, b p <peb...@bashtard.org> wrote: > Could you just fuck off and do something productive? > > Sorry for the attitude. > > Harry portobello <harryportobe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hullo, > > On 31 August 2011 09:06, Thomas Funk <t.f...@web.de> wrote: >> Hi Harry, >> >> as I red your email, my first impression was, to take up the cudgels for >> Thomas >> and will told you, that this posting hasn't belong on a public board. But >> anyway, >> you've done it, so I add one's two cents ... >> >> Yes, Thomas is sometimes abrasive, shortspoken and, if the other doesn't rtfm >> and ask his question the 26th time he becomes angry. But he answers every >> question, gives constructive feedback and is the most time friendly with a >> complete own british humor. > > I'm quite surprised by the amount of "support" received here for > Thomas; it contradicts what I've been told which makes me wonder who > is "right", but clearly there's still a problem here regardless of > that, and I'm not wanting to staet a tug-o-war. > > I'm still convinced that there's room for improvement here and until > then am keen for Thomas to respond - so that those who have raised > concern can see for themselves what's what. I do not know of those > who've spoken to me if they're mentioned their concerns publicly or > not; I would hope they have, even if it's as a private email to Thomas > directly. > > No this is not a witch-hunt, but Thomas, silence is a bad thing in > times like these. > > Terms like "abrasive" or "short" don't sit well with most people, > least of all those who wish to contribute. Thomas, how do you plan to > moderate these observations? > > Harry > > >
