More on Till Noever and Paul Rhoads

I assumed that my posts below about Till Noever and Paul Rhoads would draw a screaming response from one or both of those two persons. They didn't, even though I posted a link to this blog in a comment on Noever's blog. I also followed up with another comment, pointing out Noever's perhaps unintentional hypocrisy in complaining about the censorship of Paul Rhoads, that friend of censorship.

I haven't heard from Rhoads or Noever, so this morning I posted another comment on Noever's blog, setting out (with some deletions and additions) the comments in the second post below.

I'll admit that I just feel like raising some dust. Till's massive complacency and ignorance irk me. And I'm simply stunned by the conspiracy of silence about Rhoads's conduct. I've spoken with several people who count themselves as Rhoads's friends as supporters, and all of them have said, in effect, "Yes, Paul goes over the top."

But no one says, "Paul has gone too far."

No one says, "I cannot condone Paul lying."

No one says, "I cannot condone Paul's homophobic statements."

Rhoads will never learn. But his friends and supporters can learn that, by aiding and abetting Paul Rhoads, they are helping him inflict harm on others.

Some of those others may be people like Alex Feht. It's impossible to defend Feht. But even Feht did not deserve to be slandered.

Similarly, it's hard to defend Bruce Y. But even Bruce Y did not deserve to be the butt of Paul Rhoads's homophobic insults.

In remaining silent about Rhoads's conduct, those who could speak out are effectively condoning that conduct.

That's wrong.

It's unethical.

They need to be called on their unethical conduct.

I'm calling them out.