> Anyone who tried to judge me, as a person, by that and other output without even having met me, because things "start to feel" or "sound" a certain way

Are your lyrics all about real life situations? Do they include references to all your coworkers on a regular basis? Do you always publish them on a forum for a global audience?

They decide to publish these thoughts, so they will get judged on them. If you published all those lyrics, and they got linked to a forum on a regular basis, I think there's a good chance someone might call them out as overly bitter. Presumably, if you are putting them out for everyone to see, you're trying to get something out of that, so perhaps considering what your goal is is worthwhile.

If it's for personal catharsis, possibly to be shared with friends, a local text document, shared text document, or group message achieves that fine. Why would you publish them globally? Why would she publish these stories unless she hopes that will achieve something? I'm not sure if that's to achieve change at her place of employment (it sounds like they've definitely caused change a few times, for better or worse), or purely to warn/inform others, but freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of consequence. Maybe she should consider the consequences when she writes about the "broken ones" that are the managers she's working with and for.

> After all, if someone's blog is full of things they installed and described their first steps with, without any follow-up posts about their in-depth, day-to-day usage of the thing, people wouldn't pile on to point out that this person "seems like" they constantly change stacks

If the person is constantly trying a new thing, complaining about how they can't get anywhere with it, describing how broken it is and how they would do it better, and then stopping using it, while plenty of other people fine ways to work with that stack without too much of a problem, then yes, I think there might be a bunch of notes how maybe part of the problem expressed has to do with the person in question.

> But when someone writes a lot about negative work experiences, without mentioning the good ones, they must be a terrible person and think they're better than everyone else, naturally. Except it's not ever put that bluntly, e.g.

I draw a clear distinction between explaining poor work experiences, which we've all had, and clearly blaming the people around you for those poor experiences and for not listening to you since you have all the answers to fix them. The former is looking for sympathy, which I'm happy to help with. The latter is also looking for vindication without evidence, which I'm much less willing to take part in.

> out of 71 chars in that quote, 40 belong to weasel words.

It's called opinion. I was clearly expressing how I interpret her writing. I try not to use definitive statements when expressing things which are not fact. Feel free to call them weasel words if you like. It would be hypocritical of me to be too upset about that, given I'm critiquing something publicly.

>> But still, thanks for hyperbole to try to make me look bad! You have no idea what went on there, and you think you just HAVE to insert yourself into it.

As long as she continues to publish accounts the claim to be based on real situations and real people and represents those people and institutions as negatively as she does, she can expect responses. Those responses are doing the same thing she is, in critiquing a situation they are exposed to. They assume things about the situations she explains just as she assumes things about people in them ("my manager wouldn't give a rat's ass what the results of it would be.")

If you don't want people publicly critiquing your personal experiences, don't publish them. That's how the world works.

Now, given that she's responded to some of my critiques specifically in that link, and you've kindly linked to it and referenced it, I'll respond to some of those here, as if addressing her:

> I had an opportunity to land and support them through the IPO. Then if it worked out, maybe it would be worth something some day. ... What would you do? You'd take the damn job. Of course you would.

I don't think I would, given some of your experiences. When I said maybe find a different class of company, I meant it. Whether that be a company not looking to IPO, or a company with a mission that makes the work worthwhile even if it's not as lucrative and/or interesting, maybe a work-life balance change is something that should be given more consideration. Maybe that means considering a non-profit, maybe that means considering a company whose goal isn't the normal startup to IPO trajectory with stock options (maybe it means avoiding those like the plague). For what it's worth, I've actually based most of work life around that, so I probably wouldn't have taken the offer myself, either. I have no plans to work in SH or the south bay unless forced to, I've avoided it so far.

> Point: (anything about not recognizing the CEO on my third day there) ... Now, consider that I was supposedly there to deal with technical problems.

Unless you were hired as a consultant, I think this is extremely short-sighted. You were hired to be part of an organization. It sounds like you weren't really interesting in being part of that organization, from the very beginning. Really, it's fine that you didn't recognize the CEO. I really only took offense that you portrayed anyone that would know who the CEO was as problematic, when there are many reasons you might want to know ahead of time. The ones I mentioned in the previous post (making sure you're not working for an obvious scumbag), or just making sure you know who is who so you what you're saying to which people. You might consider "being unfiltered" and "speaking truth to power" important aspects of your personality, but I consider not caring who you're talking to when you say things inconsiderate at best, and more likely, just being an asshole. We might just disagree on this.

> Point: "why post this for the world to see?" ... Catharsis, and probably more than a little cabin fever.

Well, if you're looking for benefit from posting it publicly, you have to deal with the downsides when they occur. To your credit, you do. That said, if you don't want actual critique, you can publish to a smaller audience, such as friends. It's your choice. Perhaps the public agreement you get and feelings that brings outweighs the disagreement and those feelings. In that case, by all means, continue on.