Most people here would be interested in Rob Pike's opinion. What you quote is from someone commenting on Rob's post.

The way that Rob's opinion here is deflected, first by focusing on the fact that he got a spam mail and then this misleading quote ("myself" does not refer to Rob) is very sad.

The spam mail just triggered Rob's opinion (the one that normal people are interested in).

▲

pinnochio 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This comment deserves to be ranked higher. I 100% interpreted the quote as coming from Rob Pike.

▲

bigyabai 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Both are intellectually gratifying, to me. I think the only mistake they made was leaving the attribution ambiguous.

	▲	4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

HaZeust 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>"Rob's opinion (the one that normal people are interested in)."

I think you have an overinflated notion of what "normal people" care about

▲

oh_my_goodness 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Pike's name is what people are clicking on here. That's being abused to sell this random comment about IP.

▲

trinsic2 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Dont try to tell us what we are choosing to focus on. Everything in the message from Pike and the comments below his post are relevant. There was no assumption in my mind that this was all about Pike.

	▲	oh_my_goodness 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Please don't reinterpret my comment. I didn't say anything about what you're focusing on. I made the simple and clear point that clicking on Pike's name leads to an unattributed quotation that (it turns out) isn't from Pike.