Please direct mr Turnas' attention to this site:

http://www.smalldog.com/PHPbb/viewforum.php?f=1

This is the CEO of an Internet Mac COmpany that is VERY Liberal and pisses me off many times with his diatribes.  How do I know this?  Because when I need mac stuff, that is where I still go. His products and quality of merchandise have nothing to do with his errant political leanings.

On His behalf, I will say he is at least rational in his beliefs.

No, Mr. Turnas, you are not a moderate or conservative.  You are truly far left and bordering on insanity from the little I have read so far.

And check me if I am wrong, but is not Steve Jobs openly democrat?  And proud of it?  And is not one of the biggest Mac users around, none other than Rush Limbaugh?

I think Mr Turnas just stepped into the twilight zone!

Of course, in order for me to be calling that person a moron they would already have to be someone who decides what to purchase based on the ideology of its CEO.

Amazon.com's CEO supposedly contributes to Democrats (I think it's Democrats).  I could care less. If they started deciding which books they carried based on the politics of the author, then I'd care.

A good friend of mine, who is very "far left" btw, write a lengthy essay that talks about the kind of people who use the phrase "you don't just get it" when they find themselves incapable of communicating or defending their position.  In his essay, he argues that most of the time, the "you just don't get it" line comes from people are are ultimately defending something that doesn't stand up to close scrutiny.

Similarly, your argument is, IMO, based on similarly weak positions.

Let's take a look at them:

1) Your argument that my articles aren't well written, logical, etc.  That's your opinion. You're entitled to it. I don't agree with it. And I am willing to submit that most people, looking through my entire set of work, would not agree with your position.

2) You argue that my articles, because of the way they're written, could damage my business presupposed that my job is the end all be all rather than merely a means to an end.  I'm already "rich" by anyone's standard. And that is not because of my political views.  But even if, as you argue, my postings damage said business, I would not stop writing because the success of the company is not my paramount objective in life.  Providing for my family is my paramount objective. And as long as the company, or some other job, can do that, then I am content.  Being able to express my opinions, even if they're obnoxious, takes precedence over some inmeasureable business performance goal.

3) It should be noted that I, nor our company donate to any political causes.  In other words, someone buying one of our products or services is not, even indirectly, contributing to a political cause they disagree with.  The entirety of my political ideology manifests itself on the web, such as here, where those who opppose me have an equal ability to respond with their own articles.  Do you think, for instance, a Michael Moore, lets those who disagree with him have a free place on their site to write opposing points of view? 

4) I don't think most people, reading my articles, would consider what I write "ranting and raving".  Therefore, your conclusions do not pan out.  I.e. I certainly don't have a lot of pent up anger. I'm not even sure what I would be angry about. 

5) Regarding "Not being taken seriously". Our company is certainly taken seriously in the industries it is in IMO. Though quantifying "being taken seriously" is difficult.  I just returned from a media tour and given the instant results of that media tour, it sure FELT like we were being taken seriously.  

Having appeared in Time Magazine, US News & World Report, Newsweek, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC (ironically not FOXNews) in the past 6 months I certainly feel like we've been taken seriously.  In fact, our last computer game is about to be announced as having been nominated for Best Strategy Game of 2004 by the biggest computer games magazine.  Object Desktop won PC Magazine's 2004 Editor's Choice Award at the same time our last PC game won Editor's Choice Award from a major gaming publication.

But even if your assertion were true, that we aren't taken "seriously", it would certainly not be because of my political writings. 

Ultimately, it all comes down to percentages. Some percentage of people will read what I write and think of it as "mindless troll baiting".  However, I would assert that that percentage is very low. I also given how far off you were in psychoanalysing me in that other discussion where you asserted I was a Keirsey iNTj (I'm not) I think it is you that are reading far too much into what you read.

JTurnas:  No, I'm actually not an INTJ.

Moreover, your assessment of me is not just wrong but incredibly wrong.   I don't think anyone has ever described me as a "loner" before.  As I mentioned in another thread, I've taken that test before and it always comes out as eNTj or as a "Guardian" type. 

As someone else observed, it sounds like you are projecting.   Frankly, you must be one of the least observatant people (certainly the least empathic) if you conclude I'm introverted.  I am many things but not introverted.

Whether I'm "cut out"  to be a CEO or not in your opinion is ultimately irrelevant.  I've been a CEO most of my adult life having built a successful company in that time. 

That is indeed the part that strikes me as oddest.

It is true that there are few (if any) successful introvert CEOs.  But that's because introverts rarely start companies.  Being a CEO is inherently a social activity.  Moreover, introverts aren't likely to put so much effort into creating on-line communities.  One can quibble over the nuances of other guesses at someone but introvert/extrovert is a pretty basic thing.

JTurnas - being that I have known Brad for eight plus years I can honestly tell you that you are wrong on what you imagine Brad to be. 

Brad and his wife are generous people who have big hearts and respect the views of others. If you want to have a good debate with Brad you just need to substantiate your facts as to why you believe he's wrong with real evidence.

As for Brad having a political opinion as a CEO well that's his right.  After all we live in the US which means that everyone no matter what their view point gets a right to speak.  I.e. Brad is a US citizen and has that right too regardless of whether you think it's a good business decision for him.       

Otherwise, you should learn to value opposing view points for what they are an oppurtuntiy to get to understand why someone would think about something different than you and a reason to look at how you think of things.  Do not be afraid to call Brad out on a political view if you have substantial backing to your side of the arguement.  Although you seem to have lumped him into this catagory where you think he does not look at others views points your wrong. 

Being the opposite of Brad on several debates, Brad always gives me the oppurtunity to speak my mind and substantiate my beliefs then either agrees, disagrees with reason, or states that he doesn't know enough to debate the topic and he would have to look into it.  You could even take some pointers from him. 

I don't know you and I don't have a sufficient amount of information to form an opinion of you but I would say only that you choose more carefully to give a pych profile to someone before you know them.  Too many people blindly judge people on limited statements and don't look at the whole picture.    We are all guilty at sometime or another. 

If Stardock were a publicly traded company, then the shareholders through their board of directors could instruct its CEO to agree to certain types of behavior inside and outside the company.  This is common.

But Stardock is privately owned and as Factory points out, 99.9% of people reading my articles are not going to make the connection between me and my employer. Moreover, even if they do, only a tiny fraction of them would care.

Like most things, it's a cost/benefit relationship.  I enjoy writing. Therefore I write. That makes it a benefit.  The cost, thus far, appears to be insignificant given our steady growth over the past several years. If it were to become a cost, then I would have to re-evaluate the cost/benefit ratio.  But the cost would have to be substantially high in order for me to remotely consider not writing my articles in the style I choose.  Because ultimately, the company is not the ends. It's the means to an end which is financial and social independence which I've already achieved.