Why is stating what meta-characteristics you're looking for some sort of requirement for you? My job ad does say "passionate and talented", and I (always) reserve the right to interpret that any way I choose.
> It's entirely possible that they rejected him for a perfectly reasonable reason, though there's nothing to really imply that that is so.
Yes, exactly. There's also nothing I know of to imply it's not so either. I can't pass any judgement, I can't call it embarrassing, and I don't know if the question was irrelevant or dumb or fair & smart. If you do know it for a fact, then spill the beans. So far, nothing you've chosen to share addresses this factually.
> You don't know more than what he tweeted
That's what I've said from the beginning, and is precisely why I can't side with him.
Your argument is a false dilemma, you've made assumptions and jumped to the (incorrect) conclusion that because I don't side with @mxcl, then I side with Google. You've assumed that if I'm not with @mxcl, then I'm against him. Your incorrect assumptions only reflect on you, not me.
> To me, it implied that he was pissed at being asked irrelevant questions.
In my mind, that's not meaningfully different from what I said, other that you're claiming that "irrelevant" is absolute and objective. To make that claim, you need to know Google's side of the story. Since you know more than the tweet, tell me... what's the whole story?
> in a situation where you didn't really have enough information to form a judgment you instinctively sided with the large, powerful, faceless corporation and showed distrust of the little guy who made a great piece of software for free that people love.
You just admitted and rationalized your own bias. What justification do you have for continuing to talk about mine, which may or may not exist, given yours?