Which is to say that there are reasons to use a different name online that don't involve secretly wanting pg to give you money/help...
It's also true that people doing grand things make more decisions, and hence more bad ones. I don't think that makes discussion of those decisions somehow off limits for discussion.
Like, I'm reading anon1358's comment, and yours. Yours reads like an ad-hominem. His reads like a "As a community we seem to disagree with pg on X, maybe if we band together he will listen". I agree he doesn't seem open to hearing the other side, but I think his tone is much more constructive than yours.
He could have very well-placed criticisms actually, I don't make any assessment one way or the other as to that question.
Bottom line -- the guy wants to hold PG accountable to some imaginary (but popular) standard, while evading accountability himself.
That doesn't make it ad hominem. That's a phrase used in the context of a debate. jessedhillon isn't after the argument at all. He's attacking a certain behaviour.
ad hominem: "Your point about global warming is invalid because you slap your children and I don't like that."
not ad hominem: "You slap your children and I don't like that."
Heh. Reread your initial statement.
I am easy to connect to my account name.
Happy now? How about you now discuss the issue, rather than ranting about how we shouldn't disagree with people who have more money than us.
What's that? It's too convenient to vociferously denounce someone for having an imperfect track record while doing something so grand that you could scarcely imagine the decisions he's had to make? (If you tried, that is.)
There's a reason why the word "anonymous" is often followed by "coward" -- it's abusing anonymity when you run to it as a shield from which to make pointed criticisms against actual people who will actually read what you write. Anonymity, used bravely, can provide a defense against the mob. Used cowardly, it's a defense against scrutability.