Besides what arrrg said, part of the reason I used embellish is that I don't know how close it is to the fact: certainly this is the first time I've heard/read about Jobs "attended" Stanford, but I have no idea whether he might have crashed there for a few semesters (if he was crashing the courses similar to how he did after dropping out of Reed, "attended" would only be a bit of a stretch).

Also, using the word "lie" is mean, and I'm with the camp that being mean for no reason is unnecessary.

Sure, while I agree it's nice to give strangers the benefit of the doubt, how 'mean' can one really be, to a deceased public figure?

Or to take a sillier example: You could certainly act mean to a stone, but would it care?

Personally, I tend to view the term as having more relevance in the interpersonal domain, where one would try to avoid unnecessarily hurting someone else.

Being 'mean' to the deceased can have at least two impacts that I can think of:

- Hurting the living family of the dead person - In the case of notable figures, altering public perception of the individual and their deeds. On a macro scale, if enough people talk up the bad elements of, say, Gandhi's life, it has the potential to sour society on his worthwhile points of view too.

Actually my impression of Steve Jobs is pretty negative in many ways, but I do think twice before being mean about the dead.

Those are valid points, albeit somewhat far out there.

Closer to home, in a somewhat ironic twist, my previous comment was downvoted to oblivion. My first thought was to give the critics the benefit of the doubt, and assume they were not intending to be mean.

That said, after I had taken time to give a thoughtful and respectful response (there were no personal attacks, or snark) aimed to give another moral perspective, you have this knee jerk downvoting occurring.

So while on the one hand "it's internet points and who cares, right?". And yet, I'm an actual human being here on the other side of that browser with my real username. Not a hypothetical possibility. It still feels crappy and like you've been judged by the community and found wanting. Thus to me, in my bubble, it feels mean spirited, even it was not.

Thus, it begs the question, why shouldn't our focus be on how the receiver of an action is affected?

I tend to put it under the heading of people sucking sometimes :-). It's a commonly observed effect that when there's no face-to-face interaction people don't think hard enough about the impact of their actions.

Unfortunately people tend to use downvote to mean 'I disagree'. It's sad, as I think it's important to preserve reasonably expressed dissenting opinions

“Embellish” is used here because this happened a long time ago and it’s just completely, utterly irrelevant to anything at all …

People around here seem so, so convinced that everyone here loves Apple and anything to do with it, all the while all I ever see is complete, unfettered hate. And that’s ok, definitely, nothing wrong with that, but to me this perception of Apple being irrationally loved by anyone around here is just so, so weird and unrelated to reality.