3 ms·

I gave up this topic several hours ago, and you are just now commenting to scold me for it, and following me around to do so. For someone who self-describes as

I gave up this topic several hours ago, and you are just now commenting to scold me for it, and following me around to do so. For someone who self-describes as "not a troll," you sure work hard to look like one, based on observing you for several months. Even pg had to tell you to shut up the other day. Go away and let this issue lie.

drivebyacct2 14y ago
You're the one that spammed it, ran to mommy and now are calling me a troll? Yes. I have made it this far and long on HN by being a troll. You're the one going around being a hypocrite and not supporting your arguments. Ironic that in your 'run to mommy' thread you try to invoke pg as some authority for you. (ironically his comment was trying to stop a futile argument in the bud, as you could easily have seen the other killed comment that wasn't mine while you were stalking me)? And after you accuse me of following you, you say you've been "observing me for months" and concluded I'm a troll. You're a creep. What is your problem?
- jsprinkles 14y ago
  I read the comment threads and observe patterns. You are generally an obnoxious troll, enough that I recognize your name. Like I recognize tptacek as a security expert. You, in my mind, are burned in as "obnoxious troll". Other names are burned in as permanent no-hires, never-do-business. That list grows pretty quickly. I have a good memory for obnoxious or blatantly stupid people, so you've stuck. I didn't skim your comment history, I read the God damned thread yesterday. I should have known you'd show up and want a spoonful of this delicious troll soup, hours after the fact, while saying absolutely nothing of contributing value that other people haven't said already. The complete irony of this is that the abuse I'm getting for "running to mommy" (I'm sure Paul Graham would really appreciate your minimization) is not what I expected for trying to help people not get in legal trouble, and that you can't see that just means: you are a troll.
  - drivebyacct2 14y ago
    Wow. Please, slander me more and call me names and wield baseless accusations. I would hope that pg is intelligent enough to understand that my characterization of this post isn't meant to minimize him in the least. Someone repeating the same thing over and over and flatly ignoring the same requests for an actual explanation or elaboration is bad enough. When it's followed by an immediate run to the admin for a ban seems childish to me.
    - jsprinkles 14y ago
      You came to me, bud. Can you edit that comment any more? I liked the fuller, more stupid one better wherein you claim I'm mad at you for something you said in a Bitcoin thread, like I'm a high school sophomore or something that holds a grudge. No, you're just ignorant, and I've noticed because I pay attention. Oh look, a completely new paragraph kissing pg's ass! Rewrite your comment again, this is fun to watch. > When it's followed by an immediate run to the admin for a ban seems childish to me. Pause. Time out. Now you're just being intentionally disingenuous, like many that have come before you. I did not come here to ask pg to ban him. I came here to ask for a guideline to be added advising against giving and receiving legal advice on Hacker News, as if you are not careful it can be disastrous. Without the guideline, it's just jackass me in a thread going "hey, that's a bad idea, don't do that," but people in general seem to pay attention to guidelines. Since you've been around the block of Hacker News a few times, you and I both know what a guideline is. Stop acting like I'm doing something I'm not.
      - drivebyacct2 14y ago
        Every single one of your replies: calls me names, insults me, offers no citations. Every single one of your replies repeats the same claims over and over about a legal risk for giving advice. A half a dozen people have asked you for an explanation and you refuse to even elaborate. You can think what you like of me, normally I'd say I'm sorry that I've left this impression on you. I just don't understand where you're coming from on this topic and it's clear that many others don't either. edit: I meant a "ban" on the practice of giving legal advice, I didn't mean to imply on the person. You're right "ban" is the wrong word anyway. Dude, you're even more interested in calling yourself names than just participating in the actual conversation. I'm sorry that I've failed to express myself well here but I'm losing patience with trying to have discourse.

drivebyacct2 14y ago

You're the one that spammed it, ran to mommy and now are calling me a troll? Yes. I have made it this far and long on HN by being a troll. You're the one going around being a hypocrite and not supporting your arguments. Ironic that in your 'run to mommy' thread you try to invoke pg as some authority for you. (ironically his comment was trying to stop a futile argument in the bud, as you could easily have seen the other killed comment that wasn't mine while you were stalking me)? And after you accuse me of following you, you say you've been "observing me for months" and concluded I'm a troll. You're a creep. What is your problem?

jsprinkles 14y ago
I read the comment threads and observe patterns. You are generally an obnoxious troll, enough that I recognize your name. Like I recognize tptacek as a security expert. You, in my mind, are burned in as "obnoxious troll". Other names are burned in as permanent no-hires, never-do-business. That list grows pretty quickly. I have a good memory for obnoxious or blatantly stupid people, so you've stuck. I didn't skim your comment history, I read the God damned thread yesterday. I should have known you'd show up and want a spoonful of this delicious troll soup, hours after the fact, while saying absolutely nothing of contributing value that other people haven't said already. The complete irony of this is that the abuse I'm getting for "running to mommy" (I'm sure Paul Graham would really appreciate your minimization) is not what I expected for trying to help people not get in legal trouble, and that you can't see that just means: you are a troll.
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  Wow. Please, slander me more and call me names and wield baseless accusations. I would hope that pg is intelligent enough to understand that my characterization of this post isn't meant to minimize him in the least. Someone repeating the same thing over and over and flatly ignoring the same requests for an actual explanation or elaboration is bad enough. When it's followed by an immediate run to the admin for a ban seems childish to me.
  - jsprinkles 14y ago
    You came to me, bud. Can you edit that comment any more? I liked the fuller, more stupid one better wherein you claim I'm mad at you for something you said in a Bitcoin thread, like I'm a high school sophomore or something that holds a grudge. No, you're just ignorant, and I've noticed because I pay attention. Oh look, a completely new paragraph kissing pg's ass! Rewrite your comment again, this is fun to watch. > When it's followed by an immediate run to the admin for a ban seems childish to me. Pause. Time out. Now you're just being intentionally disingenuous, like many that have come before you. I did not come here to ask pg to ban him. I came here to ask for a guideline to be added advising against giving and receiving legal advice on Hacker News, as if you are not careful it can be disastrous. Without the guideline, it's just jackass me in a thread going "hey, that's a bad idea, don't do that," but people in general seem to pay attention to guidelines. Since you've been around the block of Hacker News a few times, you and I both know what a guideline is. Stop acting like I'm doing something I'm not.
    - drivebyacct2 14y ago
      Every single one of your replies: calls me names, insults me, offers no citations. Every single one of your replies repeats the same claims over and over about a legal risk for giving advice. A half a dozen people have asked you for an explanation and you refuse to even elaborate. You can think what you like of me, normally I'd say I'm sorry that I've left this impression on you. I just don't understand where you're coming from on this topic and it's clear that many others don't either. edit: I meant a "ban" on the practice of giving legal advice, I didn't mean to imply on the person. You're right "ban" is the wrong word anyway. Dude, you're even more interested in calling yourself names than just participating in the actual conversation. I'm sorry that I've failed to express myself well here but I'm losing patience with trying to have discourse.