3 ms·

Tom, I don't think we've ever met, and I'm not sure what I ever did to you to merit repeated disdainful (and in this case, misleading) jabs in public forums, b

Tom, I don't think we've ever met, and I'm not sure what I ever did to you to merit repeated disdainful (and in this case, misleading) jabs in public forums, but I actually think 280 North is really cool and I look forward to seeing where Atlas goes. In the meantime, my so-called claims (which are narrow and do not include the wild notion that I "invented social networking," but do involve execution and not merely an "idea") were verified by The New York Times and are publicly available for inspection, so they're really facts. The trademark dispute is in the middle of discovery right now, and ironically, there are posts on this thread that support my case--so "tried" wouldn't be the best word to use, either. Anyway, if you want to selectively link to only articles that call me names, that's your prerogative. Aaron

fallentimes 18y ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/01/technology/01facebook.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/01/technology/01facebook.html
tlrobinson 18y ago
Sorry if it was misleading. I just thought it was interesting to note, given your history of legal action. As for the link, it was one of the top hits on Google for whatever I searched for at the time.
gojomo 18y ago
My (very low) opinion of your claims is not based on any Register article, but your own written account of your dealings with Zuckerberg, on p. 294 and up of your book Authoritas, a section I read when you had it online. I commented with my unvarnished opinion long before your Facebook lawsuit [1]. Congratulations on your small-claims win against an unprepared Google paralegal; Google should be held to account for cryptic and arbitrary policies that retract credited balances from users' accounts. However, in your own writings and lawsuits, you give me the impression that you are a legal gadfly rather than an entrepreneur. That can be a fine niche in life, and the press loves it, but you shouldn't expect a warm reception from aspiring entrepreneurs. Successful businesspeople often have to waste precious time and money defending against, and sometimes even paying off, legal gadflies -- even when the claims are meritless. [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49294 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49294
- thinkcomp 18y ago
  Gordon, Not that I expect to convince of anything, but your interpretation of my writing is awfully skewed. You claim I "dawdled...while Zuckerberg executed." I launched my Universal Face Book, which I coded myself, on September 19, 2003. thefacebook.com launched on February 4, 2004. Throughout those intermediate months I wrote thousands of lines of code, tried to get others interested in maintaining and growing the site, and secured partnerships. That Mark secured funding after using, speaking with me about, and then copying my work does not negate any of my actions. The "fritter[ing] around with committees" is a phrase you used, not me. The "committee" you speak of was a few of my friends in college who were in the same club. I didn't sit around "kvetch about media unfairness." I walked into The Crimson and waited until a reporter would talk to me so that I could show them the site. The "redundant academic make-work" you refer to was a version control system for CS91r, a Harvard class that both Mark and I were in, and had nothing to do with any of your previous points. Aaron
  - gojomo 18y ago
    Put the relevant pages of Authoritas back up, and let readers decide.
    - thinkcomp 18y ago
      The relevant pages of Authoritas are up (they were never taken down), but I have the right to charge for them, especially given that the book is now published. In the meantime, the documents are all available and more easily accessible than the primary sources of just about any other book there is. http://www.thinkpress.com/authoritas/resources.html http://www.thinkpress.com/authoritas/resources.html
      - xenophanes 18y ago
        The meaning of text from a book being "up" here, so that other commenters can decide for themselves, obviously does not include it being behind a paywall.
ajkirwin 18y ago
Dear Aaron, You seem to be someone who enjoys ligitating, so in an effort not to get MY ass sued, I will take a leaf out of the book of Penn Jilette. You, sir, are a fucker, a shit-stain and a crotch weasel. You're an asshole, a jerk and I probably wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire. Fuck you and the boat you sailed in on.
- swombat 18y ago
  You might be willing to say this to his face (thus not contravening the HN guidelines), but it's still not the right mode of speech on this forum.
  - ajkirwin 18y ago
    Maybe so, but I fully expect the next thing to hear about will be him suing Twitter for shutting down his viagra spam empire.
- igorhvr 18y ago
  I liked when the lower cap for the score of a comment was a higher negative value. It was nice to see comments like this one at -30 or so...
  - swombat 18y ago
    On the contrary, I think having the limit makes sense precisely in this sort of situation. This is a long-standing member of the community, and he's done something not quite right... He's probably not gonna do it again, since it was clearly rejected by the community. Voting this down to -30 would not have made a difference in the effect on the poster.
    - kragen 18y ago
      By downvoting him, are we encouraging people like Aaron to use HN? Because I really don't think that domain-squatting counts as either hacking or productive economic activity ("making something people want", as pg puts it); when it's being done in order to get paid for worthless clicks, it's borderline fraud. Neither does suing companies engaged in productive activity, such as Google and Facebook. This guy is a menace to all of us who are engaged in trying to make a living by making something people want. And you want to make sure he feels welcome on this forum? I mean, admittedly, it's not like he's making his living by destroying the reputations of people who are making things people want (like Valleywag), but he's hardly making a positive contribution. If he had never been born, the world would be that much better for the rest of us.

fallentimes 18y ago

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/01/technology/01facebook.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/01/technology/01facebook.html

tlrobinson 18y ago

Sorry if it was misleading. I just thought it was interesting to note, given your history of legal action. As for the link, it was one of the top hits on Google for whatever I searched for at the time.

gojomo 18y ago

My (very low) opinion of your claims is not based on any Register article, but your own written account of your dealings with Zuckerberg, on p. 294 and up of your book Authoritas, a section I read when you had it online. I commented with my unvarnished opinion long before your Facebook lawsuit [1]. Congratulations on your small-claims win against an unprepared Google paralegal; Google should be held to account for cryptic and arbitrary policies that retract credited balances from users' accounts. However, in your own writings and lawsuits, you give me the impression that you are a legal gadfly rather than an entrepreneur. That can be a fine niche in life, and the press loves it, but you shouldn't expect a warm reception from aspiring entrepreneurs. Successful businesspeople often have to waste precious time and money defending against, and sometimes even paying off, legal gadflies -- even when the claims are meritless. [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49294 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49294

thinkcomp 18y ago
Gordon, Not that I expect to convince of anything, but your interpretation of my writing is awfully skewed. You claim I "dawdled...while Zuckerberg executed." I launched my Universal Face Book, which I coded myself, on September 19, 2003. thefacebook.com launched on February 4, 2004. Throughout those intermediate months I wrote thousands of lines of code, tried to get others interested in maintaining and growing the site, and secured partnerships. That Mark secured funding after using, speaking with me about, and then copying my work does not negate any of my actions. The "fritter[ing] around with committees" is a phrase you used, not me. The "committee" you speak of was a few of my friends in college who were in the same club. I didn't sit around "kvetch about media unfairness." I walked into The Crimson and waited until a reporter would talk to me so that I could show them the site. The "redundant academic make-work" you refer to was a version control system for CS91r, a Harvard class that both Mark and I were in, and had nothing to do with any of your previous points. Aaron
- gojomo 18y ago
  Put the relevant pages of Authoritas back up, and let readers decide.
  - thinkcomp 18y ago
    The relevant pages of Authoritas are up (they were never taken down), but I have the right to charge for them, especially given that the book is now published. In the meantime, the documents are all available and more easily accessible than the primary sources of just about any other book there is. http://www.thinkpress.com/authoritas/resources.html http://www.thinkpress.com/authoritas/resources.html
    - xenophanes 18y ago
      The meaning of text from a book being "up" here, so that other commenters can decide for themselves, obviously does not include it being behind a paywall.

ajkirwin 18y ago

Dear Aaron, You seem to be someone who enjoys ligitating, so in an effort not to get MY ass sued, I will take a leaf out of the book of Penn Jilette. You, sir, are a fucker, a shit-stain and a crotch weasel. You're an asshole, a jerk and I probably wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire. Fuck you and the boat you sailed in on.

swombat 18y ago
You might be willing to say this to his face (thus not contravening the HN guidelines), but it's still not the right mode of speech on this forum.
- ajkirwin 18y ago
  Maybe so, but I fully expect the next thing to hear about will be him suing Twitter for shutting down his viagra spam empire.
igorhvr 18y ago
I liked when the lower cap for the score of a comment was a higher negative value. It was nice to see comments like this one at -30 or so...
- swombat 18y ago
  On the contrary, I think having the limit makes sense precisely in this sort of situation. This is a long-standing member of the community, and he's done something not quite right... He's probably not gonna do it again, since it was clearly rejected by the community. Voting this down to -30 would not have made a difference in the effect on the poster.
  - kragen 18y ago
    By downvoting him, are we encouraging people like Aaron to use HN? Because I really don't think that domain-squatting counts as either hacking or productive economic activity ("making something people want", as pg puts it); when it's being done in order to get paid for worthless clicks, it's borderline fraud. Neither does suing companies engaged in productive activity, such as Google and Facebook. This guy is a menace to all of us who are engaged in trying to make a living by making something people want. And you want to make sure he feels welcome on this forum? I mean, admittedly, it's not like he's making his living by destroying the reputations of people who are making things people want (like Valleywag), but he's hardly making a positive contribution. If he had never been born, the world would be that much better for the rest of us.