Kuhn: In Memoriam: Gervase Markham

That piece seem to be from Mitchell Baker, Chair of the Mozilla Foundation, not Rowena Hoffer. It's very mean-spirited, not reflecting well on her at all. It seems, given her normal blog topics, that she singled Gerv out for special treatment.... once he'd gone.

She tries to at least appear to attempt to write a balanced remembrance, but fails badly. The overall message is quite clear. Gerv was, she wants us to know, an insensitive reactionary clot, whose conservative Christian views of overall reality are not ones we should tolerate. Such people should hide their views, even if asked about them.

What does her condemnation boil down to, if you ask a few critical questions about it? We have to ask that, because there's no substance in the post. Nothing solid you can put your hand on. It doesn't take a genius to unravel it, if you ask a few questions in between the lines. Mitchell reveals herself as unable to cope with Gerv because he was a straightforward Christian who wasn't embarrassed to be one. He didn't apologise for not agreeing with the progressive cultural consensus. She dresses it up in passive-aggressive language to try to disguise the anger and the emotional immaturity, but what's there is clear.

I mean, she can't bear to use the word "Christian" to descibre Gerv, or in any way as a follower of Christ... even whilst mentioning it's deep (fundamental) importance to Gerv. Instead, she uses code words, like "his faith". Which faith? Doing that, to any critical reader, is a big 'tell'. Tipping your hand.

By her own testimony, Mitchell, as chair of the Foundation, having been in the organisation since Gerv was an intern, had twenty years to stop the alleged trail of destruction. Why didn't she? There's only one obvious conclusion. There was no such trail of destruction. There was no case that would have stood up to scrutiny. No case to make whilst anyone was still alive to defend it. She'd have failed, and embarrassed herself if she'd tried. There were just a few people (like herself) who were not emotionally able to cope with a real-world, flesh-and-blood Christian who had carefully thought through his views, and was able to explain them when people challenged them. This was the Gerv I personally knew from the late 1990s, and the Gerv who is widely testified to in many other remembrances. And his blog is, over 15+ years, strong evidence of this. He never wrote the kind of thing Mitchell has written, about anyone. If he disagreed with someone's *views*, it was courteous and respectful to the *person*.

To wait until a few days after he died before publicly slamming him after all that time very wrong. Making oneself judge and jury as soon as the 'accused' (in her mind) has died is very cheap and easy work. We can all do that. But he was around to respond even last month (and enough in possession of his mind to be writing a technical book). But no ... she only did it once he was safely gone. What should we say about that?

Given the things she complains about in Gerv - "publicly judging others in politely stated but damning terms", it's highly hypocritical. Those of us who read Gerv's blog know that, in 20 years of being a straightforward Christian, he never wrote like Mitchell has just done. Slamming someone publicly a few days after they've been buried. And presenting herself as the voice of sweet reason whilst doing so! And that, after knowing for many months that he was dying. It wasn't sudden; it wasn't unexpected; it wasn't secret. He announced he was dying soon when he left Mozilla a few months ago, and blogged publicly about it, very humbly and engagingly.

Her piece is written in the tone of a final word on a talented, but problematic son, as if from a sighing mother who has long watched over per protegé through his stumbles, falls and attempts to improve .... whilst occasionally letting the mask slip in exasperation, and just slamming him with some bitterness. Patronising and malicious at the same time. Where is the vomit bucket, please?

The fact that so many people who disagreed with Gerv about matters concerning orthodox Christian have also testified that he was always a gentlemen, leads to a different conclusion that the one Mitchell clearly wants to leave. She wanted to write Gerv's epitaph. I know though, how Gerv would have handed that. Not with anger; not with the indignation I feel. He did care for others, but didn't care for his own reputation. He would have thought nothing of it, and been ready to extend forgiveness straight away; he would have made sure Mitchell knew that he had no problem personally with her. I know to whom Gerv would have given the credit for that, and, did he not have a right to tell people about that?