09.01.11
Gemini version available ♊︎More Sex Scandals at Microsoft
Summary: A “£10 million High Court battle” and dismissal give visibility to yet another shameful pattern of behaviour inside Microsoft
SEX SCANDALS are not unusual at Microsoft. There are recent examples even of alleged orgies. According to a couple of different source from the UK, this is getting litigious: [via]
A culture of “excessive drunkeness” and lewd behaviour among senior staff at Microsoft in Britain has apparently been laid bare in a £10 million High Court battle between its UK chief and his former second in command.
And separately:
Negus denied allegedly planting a smacker on a workmate at WPC in Atlanta in 2009 in full view of attendees, but when additional information came to light he was dismissed, Microsoft said in its claim, quoted in a report by Bloomberg.
One needs to be somewhat of a sociopath to work for a convicted monopolist with a proven history of crime. It’s like seeking a job at Blackwater, it’s not “just a business”. That’s why many people do refuse to work for Microsoft. There is ethics mismatch. It’s not that Microsoft turns people into sociopaths, it just tends to attract sociopaths. It’s a cultural thing. █
“By May of 1994, Gates’s patience was growing so thin that not even a public relations pro like Pam Edstrom could muzzle him.”
–Jennifer Edstrom
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA
Michael said,
September 1, 2011 at 12:52 pm
Given your connecting of sex scandals with the moral level of those who work for the developer of the OS, the comments of Richard Stallman must really bother you. From his own site:
—–
I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms
children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based
on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by
parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby
is maturing.
—–
If people are seriously concerned not to let children have
sex in making porn films, they could use the approach that
has succesfully eliminated cruelty to animals in films. You
have seen the statements certifying that “no animals were
harmed in making this film.” There could be a similar
certification that “no minors had sex or were nude with
adults in making this film.”
—–
Internet filtering in schools blocks access to educational
materials. While that article focuses on blockage of the
educational materials that prudes would admit, porn is also
very important for education. Blocking adolescents’ access to
porn, or keeping them ignorant of sex in any way, is likely
to stunt their emotional growth and make them vulnerable to
mistakes that can hurt them badly.
—–
It is absurd to punish anyone for having sex with someone of
age 15 — it is normal for Americans of age 15 to have sex.
—–
The concept of “sexual interference with a human corpse” is
curious. All a corpse can do is decay, so the only possible
kind of interference is to prevent its decay. Thus, “sexual
interference” ought to mean playing with the corpse’s
genitals while injecting embalming fluid, or while putting it
into a refrigerator. However, I doubt that the censors
interpret this term rationally. They will have cooked up an
excuse for some twisted interpretation of the term.
This censorship cannot be justified by protecting corpses
from suffering. Whatever you do to a corpse, it can’t suffer,
not even emotionally.
—–
After all, Roy, if you are to be consistent, you must think that all who work on GNU< at the very least, must share or at least support such repulsive views.
Right?
No double standard from you!
Michael said,
September 2, 2011 at 11:29 am
Looking here: http://techrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/irc-log-social-01092011.html OR http://goo.gl/Zy9k8
I see Roy is denying Stallman said the above things… or saying that when he did they were taken out of context. Well, here are the links to Stallman’s own site where he says these things. You may need to use the find feature of your browser to find the quotes (control+F on most browsers)- the pages are long.
http://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html
Dutch pedophiles have formed a political party to campaign
for legalization.
I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms
children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based
on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by
parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby
is maturing.
Yes: Stallman is supporting a political party that wants to campain for the legalization of pedophilia. And clicking on Stallman’s own link, we get this: http://www.iol.co.za/news/world/dutch-paedophiles-to-launch-political-party-1.279664 OR http://goo.gl/PVkle
Dutch paedophiles are launching a political party to push for
a cut in the legal age for sexual relations to 12 from 16 and
the legalisation of child pornography and sex with animals.
Yes… *that* is what Stallman is supporting! Nothing taken out of context… and no commentary on my part needed to see how repulsive that is.
http://stallman.org/archives/2010-may-aug.html
If people are seriously concerned not to let children have
sex in making porn films, they could use the approach that
has succesfully eliminated cruelty to animals in films. You
have seen the statements certifying that “no animals were
harmed in making this film.” There could be a similar
certification that “no minors had sex or were nude with
adults in making this film.”
Those are Stallman’s *exact* words. On his own site.
http://stallman.org/archives/2010-jan-apr.html
Internet filtering in schools blocks access to educational
materials. While that article focuses on blockage of the
educational materials that prudes would admit, porn is also
very important for education. Blocking adolescents’ access to
porn, or keeping them ignorant of sex in any way, is likely
to stunt their emotional growth and make them vulnerable to
mistakes that can hurt them badly.
Yes: Stallman is saying that porn is important to education and that kids should have access to it in *schools*, and to block it will “stunt their emotional growth”.
No twisting of his words, Roy. Those are Stallman’s words on his own site.
http://stallman.org/archives/2008-may-aug.html
It is absurd to punish anyone for having sex with someone of
age 15 — it is normal for Americans of age 15 to have sex.
http://stallman.org/articles/extreme.html
The concept of “sexual interference with a human corpse” is
curious. All a corpse can do is decay, so the only possible
kind of interference is to prevent its decay. Thus, “sexual
interference” ought to mean playing with the corpse’s
genitals while injecting embalming fluid, or while putting it
into a refrigerator. However, I doubt that the censors
interpret this term rationally. They will have cooked up an
excuse for some twisted interpretation of the term.
This censorship cannot be justified by protecting corpses
from suffering. Whatever you do to a corpse, it can’t suffer,
not even emotionally.
Once again, Roy’s claims of my being dishonest are proved to be lies on his part. Stallman said exactly what I attributed to him. And there is a lot more…
http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/StallmanQuotes.txt
twitter said,
September 2, 2011 at 2:33 pm
I’d prefer to read the whole thing, thanks, so that I’ll know how you have taken things out of context in your smear. I don’t see how you can compare the alleged controversial statements of one person to the demonstrated organizational depravity of a whole company. Statements are not actions so the two are not comparable.
Michael Reply:
September 2nd, 2011 at 2:36 pm
Do you have a problem with Stallman’s words? I do.
When Roy vilifies MS over *accusations* as he ignores Stallman’s repulsive BS, it proves he is biased.
By the way, are you Roy using a different name? Just curious.