3 ms·
> If it were pg I'd understand, bit this is just sad. Wat. pg photoshopping himself onto a photo with JT is less sad how?
by notJim 14y ago
> If it were pg I'd understand, bit this is just sad.
Wat. pg photoshopping himself onto a photo with JT is less sad how?
- peterhajas 14y agoBecause people here love the guy, regardless of his conspiracies about McDonalds franchises.
- rdl 14y agoI think Jun8 meant that photoshopping yourself onto a photo with pg is less pathetic than photoshopping yourself onto a photo with JT. pg = actually relevant to startups, and it's highly plausible for someone (especially someone working for YC companies) to meet him and potentially take a photo with him. I'd sort of assume some slight endorsement if a consultant 1) knew who pg was 2) met him and got a photo, whereas a photo with JT is just Hollywood celebrity namedropping. (Ashton Kutcher, who is a legitimate tech investor in his own right, is different) (unless you were jokingly misunderstanding this for comedic effect)
- ricardonunez 14y agoJT did invest in myspace. Does it count?
- Jun8 14y agoYou're right, that would be more sad!
- buu700 14y agoFound this on pg's Facebook profile: http://i.minus.com/joiEdx6W3YHcZ.png http://i.minus.com/joiEdx6W3YHcZ.png Compare to the original (easily found with Google): http://i.minus.com/jGgj22Vnipvhc.jpg http://i.minus.com/jGgj22Vnipvhc.jpg
- dmor 14y agosomeday maybe PG will use Facebook, til then meme on