3 ms·

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

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.
    - jsprinkles 14y ago
      > Every single one of your replies: calls me names, insults me Oh, my God! You're right! It's almost like I'm reacting to the tone of conversation that you set by calling me names, or something else equally logical! http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4056813 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4056813 > A half a dozen people have asked you for an explanation and you refuse to even elaborate. And, half a dozen people have gotten replies explaining that I am not legally permitted -- as in, I'll be held in contempt and go to jail if I do -- to elaborate on the firsthand knowledge I have regarding a similar situation. I've seen it happen personally, I advise against it as a result, I'm sorry, I can't elaborate further. The end. The irony here is that I went after tptacek for this a few days ago and now I'm in a similar situation myself. I know what I'm talking about. I can't provide evidence to you, and I don't care if you believe me or not, but I will still share my opinion that it's legally questionable territory. > I just don't understand where you're coming from on this topic and it's clear that many others don't either. The several people and lawyer who agreed with my position make perfectly valid explanations that I did not think of, and not a single soul replied to them, but everybody's happy to pile on jsprinkles because his tone isn't perfect. Don't come back high and mighty about discourse when you started this conversation with three annoying, smarmy comments. Go fuck a rake. Please, I'm begging you, bring back the Bitcoin remark so I can laugh at it again. And, keep deleting the comments that I'm referring to to undermine my position. Don't worry. I remember.

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.
  - jsprinkles 14y ago
    > Every single one of your replies: calls me names, insults me Oh, my God! You're right! It's almost like I'm reacting to the tone of conversation that you set by calling me names, or something else equally logical! http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4056813 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4056813 > A half a dozen people have asked you for an explanation and you refuse to even elaborate. And, half a dozen people have gotten replies explaining that I am not legally permitted -- as in, I'll be held in contempt and go to jail if I do -- to elaborate on the firsthand knowledge I have regarding a similar situation. I've seen it happen personally, I advise against it as a result, I'm sorry, I can't elaborate further. The end. The irony here is that I went after tptacek for this a few days ago and now I'm in a similar situation myself. I know what I'm talking about. I can't provide evidence to you, and I don't care if you believe me or not, but I will still share my opinion that it's legally questionable territory. > I just don't understand where you're coming from on this topic and it's clear that many others don't either. The several people and lawyer who agreed with my position make perfectly valid explanations that I did not think of, and not a single soul replied to them, but everybody's happy to pile on jsprinkles because his tone isn't perfect. Don't come back high and mighty about discourse when you started this conversation with three annoying, smarmy comments. Go fuck a rake. Please, I'm begging you, bring back the Bitcoin remark so I can laugh at it again. And, keep deleting the comments that I'm referring to to undermine my position. Don't worry. I remember.