3 ms·

https://www.gaysonoma.com/2023/04/gay-cash-app-founder-bob-lee-stabbed-and-killed-in-san-francisco https://www.gaysonoma.com/2023/04/gay-cash-app-founder-bob-l.

https://www.gaysonoma.com/2023/04/gay-cash-app-founder-bob-lee-stabbed-and-killed-in-san-francisco https://www.gaysonoma.com/2023/04/gay-cash-app-founder-bob-l... Setting aside the label, this does appear to potentially have been a crime of passion, which has specific legal consequences. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/crime_of_passion https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/crime_of_passion

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
Oh, didn’t know. I never heard him use that label, and remember him pushing back on it, but that wasn’t super recent.
- SilasX 4y ago
  You probably should have led with the basis your belief: that would have made your original comment useful, even if you turned out to be confidently wrong (yet again).
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > probably should have led with the basis your belief That I knew him, and that he said as much? Yes.
    - SilasX 4y ago
      Yes, that is what you should have led with. What's confusing you here?
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > Yes, that is what you should have led with. What's the question? No question to you. What I shared was personal and irrelevant. It's a bit snotty to turn a dead man into a football because you're upset my views on crypto.
        SilasX 4y ago
        No. You have a very persistent, easily fixable habit of being confidently wrong. I'm suggesting a way to fight that habit and make your comments useful, even for those cases where you turn out to be wrong. You can benefit from that advice, or you can double down. I know what the responsible option is.
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > even for those cases where you turn out to be wrong I’m not going to litigate a dead man’s personal life on a forum. But I’m not totally sold on that article. There are contemporaneous public quotes, too, where Bob identified as straight while acknowledging sleeping with men. It’s not an important issue, so I’m not going to fight it. But I will defend saying it, as well as my right to not say how I know. On the crypto thread, I maintain that counterparty risk for e.g. LedgerX is significant in the event Bitcoin zeroes out. You disagree. So do a lot of people confidently placing leveraged bets there. This will almost certainly require court intervention, so it will be interesting to see. Nevertheless, it was an interesting discussion from which I learned. I also appreciate this feedback, even though I disagree on speaking unequivocally or being required to breach one’s privacy to make a low-key point.
        SilasX 4y ago
        In the spirit of the HN guidelines, let's keep the crypto talk on the crypto thread.[1] >But I will defend saying it, as well as my right to not say how I know. Maybe I wasn't clear -- I just meant that you should have led with the stuff you were already comfortable saying, i.e. this part[2]: >>>I never heard him use that label, and remember him pushing back on it, and I asked that because it allows others to better gauge the credibility of the belief, rather than give the false impression that it's uncontroversial, widely accepted knowledge. Heck, even saying that it was based on personal knowledge that you couldn't elaborate on would have been better. You also just now gave other evidence that wasn't private, and would have also been helpful to know: >There are contemporaneous public quotes, too, where Bob identified as straight while acknowledging sleeping with men. None of that requires to you divulge anything private, but it does save you from being confidently wrong, and does provide useful context to the discussion. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35544883 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35544883 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35559215 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35559215

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

Oh, didn’t know. I never heard him use that label, and remember him pushing back on it, but that wasn’t super recent.

SilasX 4y ago
You probably should have led with the basis your belief: that would have made your original comment useful, even if you turned out to be confidently wrong (yet again).
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > probably should have led with the basis your belief That I knew him, and that he said as much? Yes.
  - SilasX 4y ago
    Yes, that is what you should have led with. What's confusing you here?
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > Yes, that is what you should have led with. What's the question? No question to you. What I shared was personal and irrelevant. It's a bit snotty to turn a dead man into a football because you're upset my views on crypto.
      - SilasX 4y ago
        No. You have a very persistent, easily fixable habit of being confidently wrong. I'm suggesting a way to fight that habit and make your comments useful, even for those cases where you turn out to be wrong. You can benefit from that advice, or you can double down. I know what the responsible option is.
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > even for those cases where you turn out to be wrong I’m not going to litigate a dead man’s personal life on a forum. But I’m not totally sold on that article. There are contemporaneous public quotes, too, where Bob identified as straight while acknowledging sleeping with men. It’s not an important issue, so I’m not going to fight it. But I will defend saying it, as well as my right to not say how I know. On the crypto thread, I maintain that counterparty risk for e.g. LedgerX is significant in the event Bitcoin zeroes out. You disagree. So do a lot of people confidently placing leveraged bets there. This will almost certainly require court intervention, so it will be interesting to see. Nevertheless, it was an interesting discussion from which I learned. I also appreciate this feedback, even though I disagree on speaking unequivocally or being required to breach one’s privacy to make a low-key point.
        SilasX 4y ago
        In the spirit of the HN guidelines, let's keep the crypto talk on the crypto thread.[1] >But I will defend saying it, as well as my right to not say how I know. Maybe I wasn't clear -- I just meant that you should have led with the stuff you were already comfortable saying, i.e. this part[2]: >>>I never heard him use that label, and remember him pushing back on it, and I asked that because it allows others to better gauge the credibility of the belief, rather than give the false impression that it's uncontroversial, widely accepted knowledge. Heck, even saying that it was based on personal knowledge that you couldn't elaborate on would have been better. You also just now gave other evidence that wasn't private, and would have also been helpful to know: >There are contemporaneous public quotes, too, where Bob identified as straight while acknowledging sleeping with men. None of that requires to you divulge anything private, but it does save you from being confidently wrong, and does provide useful context to the discussion. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35544883 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35544883 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35559215 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35559215