4 ms·

Even one other time is enough - because it was pointed out then that it isn't illegal to change your residence and that Arrington had bought his house in WA, th

by nikcub 15y ago

Even one other time is enough - because it was pointed out then that it isn't illegal to change your residence and that Arrington had bought his house in WA, the only house he owns, before he started Techcrunch this having nothing to do with OP doesn't really need a citation

cletus 15y ago
I have to question what your agenda is as a (former?) TechCrunch writer. Are you perhaps trying to curry favour ahead of the launch of your "pre-launch startup" (from your profile)? You certainly seem eager to mischaracterize my comments and malign my intentions when we've already gone from "every time" to "once before". While you're at it, point out where the comment is "copy and paste[d]" elsewhere. Since you can't, we'll chalk that accusation up to yet more slander. Nowhere did I say changing residence for tax purpose was "illegal". Someone else may have characterized it as such. Take it up with them. There's a huge gap between "illegal" and the state of California making a claim that Arrington is still technically resident so the sale is subject to California state income tax.
- nikcub 15y ago
  No - all this comes down to is that your comment has literally nothing to do with the OP, isn't the first time you have made the comment, and in any other circumstance would have been downvoted into negative territory because it doesn't meet a single guideline of this site
  - pbreit 15y ago
    How does this have nothing (in italics) to do with the OP? If it's true, it's the whole story! Ps I did not down vote.
- nikcub 15y ago
  and to add - your hypothesis that Mike wants to get fired doesn't match any real analysis of the situation. You seem to have said this only to only re-open your old claims again, but if you read your supporting evidence, it doesn't backup your claim that Mike wants to get fired. Now I know absolutely nothing of what is going on - but here is some quick analysis. First - there is no way in the world that MG wrote this post on Techcrunch without Mike knowing about it. If I were a bettering man, I would wager that Mike prompted it. The evidence? Every time MG writes a 'meta' post about Techcrunch, blogs, politics etc. he writes it on his personal blog. He has never meta-blogged on Techcrunch. Only yesterday he wrote a post on his personal blog about this situation. Second - Mike said in the press last week that he will still write at Techcrunch. Because he wants to - because he has to. And remember the fund was announced without Mike stepping down. The 'stepping down' part came only a few hours later when AOL were forced into the move under some media pressure and scrutiny. Queue screwing up the press announcement about the fund, AOL going back on their statements and then finally telling the press that Mike no longer works there (without Mike saying anything) and suddenly you have a post, on TC, from MG, that reeks of a last-ditched move orchestrated by Mike This is all about using a public reaction to get Mike's job back at Techcrunch, and everything back to how it was a week ago. If you spent the amount of time you did on your comment looking at the actual situation without blinders on you would realize that the real conclusions and any real analysis is the opposite of what you suggest (ie. it has nothing to do with CA residency tax codes)

by nikcub 15y ago

cletus 15y ago

I have to question what your agenda is as a (former?) TechCrunch writer. Are you perhaps trying to curry favour ahead of the launch of your "pre-launch startup" (from your profile)? You certainly seem eager to mischaracterize my comments and malign my intentions when we've already gone from "every time" to "once before". While you're at it, point out where the comment is "copy and paste[d]" elsewhere. Since you can't, we'll chalk that accusation up to yet more slander. Nowhere did I say changing residence for tax purpose was "illegal". Someone else may have characterized it as such. Take it up with them. There's a huge gap between "illegal" and the state of California making a claim that Arrington is still technically resident so the sale is subject to California state income tax.

nikcub 15y ago
No - all this comes down to is that your comment has literally nothing to do with the OP, isn't the first time you have made the comment, and in any other circumstance would have been downvoted into negative territory because it doesn't meet a single guideline of this site
- pbreit 15y ago
  How does this have nothing (in italics) to do with the OP? If it's true, it's the whole story! Ps I did not down vote.
nikcub 15y ago
and to add - your hypothesis that Mike wants to get fired doesn't match any real analysis of the situation. You seem to have said this only to only re-open your old claims again, but if you read your supporting evidence, it doesn't backup your claim that Mike wants to get fired. Now I know absolutely nothing of what is going on - but here is some quick analysis. First - there is no way in the world that MG wrote this post on Techcrunch without Mike knowing about it. If I were a bettering man, I would wager that Mike prompted it. The evidence? Every time MG writes a 'meta' post about Techcrunch, blogs, politics etc. he writes it on his personal blog. He has never meta-blogged on Techcrunch. Only yesterday he wrote a post on his personal blog about this situation. Second - Mike said in the press last week that he will still write at Techcrunch. Because he wants to - because he has to. And remember the fund was announced without Mike stepping down. The 'stepping down' part came only a few hours later when AOL were forced into the move under some media pressure and scrutiny. Queue screwing up the press announcement about the fund, AOL going back on their statements and then finally telling the press that Mike no longer works there (without Mike saying anything) and suddenly you have a post, on TC, from MG, that reeks of a last-ditched move orchestrated by Mike This is all about using a public reaction to get Mike's job back at Techcrunch, and everything back to how it was a week ago. If you spent the amount of time you did on your comment looking at the actual situation without blinders on you would realize that the real conclusions and any real analysis is the opposite of what you suggest (ie. it has nothing to do with CA residency tax codes)