5 ms·

"I'm an advisor for Walmart." --your profile on this web site. Is your argument really that I haven't written about enough different topics? Well, here's some

"I'm an advisor for Walmart." --your profile on this web site. Is your argument really that I haven't written about enough different topics? Well, here's some for you: - Toxic waste in Palo Alto http://www.aarongreenspan.com/writing/essay.html?id=88 http://www.aarongreenspan.com/writing/essay.html?id=88 - Supreme Court briefing requirements http://www.aarongreenspan.com/writing/essay.html?id=87 http://www.aarongreenspan.com/writing/essay.html?id=87 - Business schools http://www.aarongreenspan.com/writing/essay.html?id=58 http://www.aarongreenspan.com/writing/essay.html?id=58 - Airport security http://www.aarongreenspan.com/writing/essay.html?id=49 http://www.aarongreenspan.com/writing/essay.html?id=49 So given that I've written about a variety of issues, do you have any substantive response to any of the questions I pose above?

tptacek 12y ago
I'm not sure exactly what he means, but perhaps he's referring to what you choose to post to this particular site: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=author%3Athinkcomp#!/comment/sort_by_date/0/author%3Athinkcomp https://hn.algolia.com/?q=author%3Athinkcomp#!/comment/sort_... Wikipedia has a term that might (or might not?) apply here: "Single Purpose Account".
- thinkcomp 12y ago
  Yeah, not your strongest argument ever. Aaron Swartz and Google AdSense have absolutely nothing to do with money transmission. Nice try though. The general sentiment I get from the community is that if you're an expert on a particular issue, and you happen to have an unpopular viewpoint, you shouldn't participate. The community is entitled to that sentiment, and I am entitled to strongly disagree with it, which I will continue to do so long as it persists.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    Perhaps not, although I have to click through a page or two of the search results for the pattern to become particularly apparent. I wouldn't know anything about having unpopular viewpoints coupled with subject matter expertise. Maybe you're right about HN.
  - jt2190 12y ago
    > The general sentiment I get from the community is that > if you're an expert on a particular issue, and you > happen to have an unpopular viewpoint, you shouldn't > participate. For all the talk of deference to logic, facts and expertise here, the reality is that this community is just as emotional, superstitious and irrational as any other group of humans you'll find. Forget about "facts" and "evidence": If you want to win people's support you'll have to court them like a politician courts voters. Study the techniques of some politicians who had to gain support for unpopular or controversial legislation. Dale Carnegie is also worth a read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People#Twelve_Ways_to_Win_People_to_Your_Way_of_Thinking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influenc...
  - pbreit 12y ago
    Not only are people sick and tired of your dead horse, some of the folks here are on the other side of your lawsuit (or close). So don't be surprised when you don't get the red carpet.
    - thinkcomp 12y ago
      I don't think I ever said I was surprised. Just because I commented on the dynamic doesn't mean I find it shocking.
      - jacquesm 12y ago
        Word to the wise: don't pollute HN like this or you risk alienating those that were seeing things your way (or at least, had a bit more balance than just black/white).
        thinkcomp 12y ago
        I'm not trying to win a popularity contest. I'm trying to make a point about ethics that no one wants to hear. Still not one person has addressed any of my initial concerns.
        jacquesm 12y ago
        > I'm not trying to win a popularity contest. No, that much is clear. What is clear is that you have an axe to grind and have lost perspective as to what is and is not a proper venue for making your point (you're suing, what else do you want to do?), and that your concerns are now a matter of court review so whatever someone here has to say about it (including Sam Altman) has no importance at all. Ethics have relatively little to do with your complaint, you contend that it should be illegal, that does not mean that it is ethical or not to engage in said practice. Lots of things that are legal are not ethical and vice versa, but by involving the courts you have made your battleground the legal aspect, not the ethical one. The one that does not want to hear it seems in this case is you.
waterlesscloud 12y ago
Whenever I see your username, I instantly assume you're posting something about money transmitter laws. And usually talking about something that happened to you years ago that your feel was unfair to you. Fair or unfair, that's the impression I have of your account.
joshu 12y ago
When I see you comment, you are usually using whatever topic to talk about your pet issues, which is usually money transmission. Combining your boorish focus with your unpleasant discourse makes me think, "oh god, he's here to beat his dead horse again." For what it's worth, digging into someone's profile to figure out how some background detail is relevant to your dead horse is is somewhere between "unpleasant discourse" and "creepy." I also suspect that pointing these things out to you is unlikely to yield fruit so I already know that this is my own private dead horse. I'll update my profile regardless.
- thinkcomp 12y ago
  I understand that you don't like what I have to say. And I understand that you, and apparently others, don't like talking or even reading, for whatever reason, about money transmission. Here's what I don't understand: you're now criticizing me for referencing something you posted on a public profile. Why did you put it there if you don't want it to be seen or considered? You're also criticizing me for raising a substantive issue especially relevant to startup founders and investors, on a forum for startup founders and investors, when you yourself are a startup founder and (it would appear from this page) investor. If you want to plug your ears and pretend that I am just some crazy person obsessed with a pet issue that has no bearing on reality, by all means go ahead. But this is exactly the ethical debate I believe needs to be had. Because I am not just a crazy person obsessed with a pet issue. I, like you, am a rather rational person looking to turn a profit from my involvement in the technology sector. And the California legislature has now put forth not one, but two bills, to amend the law that I am most concerned with because it had a material impact on my company and many others, including some of the largest in the country (ADP, PayPal, MoneyGram, etc.). Moreover, this law affects you and potentially your investments. It certainly affects Y Combinator. And there are serious ethical issues tied up in all of this, which I will continue to haul before a judge as long as I need to. So really, what are you getting at? You don't like me? No problem, you don't have to. But don't pretend that I'm doing something "creepy" when all that I'm doing is pointing out that laws actually matter.
  - joshu 12y ago
    I guess my point is: you sound like a crazy person. You use tangential issues to raise things you think are important (YC ethics, my background) that nobody else seems to agree on. The creepy refers to your mode of communication, not the message specifically. I never really get to the meat of what you are saying because I find I dislike your manner of presentation. The message and the format are inseparable.

tptacek 12y ago

I'm not sure exactly what he means, but perhaps he's referring to what you choose to post to this particular site: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=author%3Athinkcomp#!/comment/sort_by_date/0/author%3Athinkcomp https://hn.algolia.com/?q=author%3Athinkcomp#!/comment/sort_... Wikipedia has a term that might (or might not?) apply here: "Single Purpose Account".

thinkcomp 12y ago
Yeah, not your strongest argument ever. Aaron Swartz and Google AdSense have absolutely nothing to do with money transmission. Nice try though. The general sentiment I get from the community is that if you're an expert on a particular issue, and you happen to have an unpopular viewpoint, you shouldn't participate. The community is entitled to that sentiment, and I am entitled to strongly disagree with it, which I will continue to do so long as it persists.
- tptacek 12y ago
  Perhaps not, although I have to click through a page or two of the search results for the pattern to become particularly apparent. I wouldn't know anything about having unpopular viewpoints coupled with subject matter expertise. Maybe you're right about HN.
- jt2190 12y ago
  > The general sentiment I get from the community is that > if you're an expert on a particular issue, and you > happen to have an unpopular viewpoint, you shouldn't > participate. For all the talk of deference to logic, facts and expertise here, the reality is that this community is just as emotional, superstitious and irrational as any other group of humans you'll find. Forget about "facts" and "evidence": If you want to win people's support you'll have to court them like a politician courts voters. Study the techniques of some politicians who had to gain support for unpopular or controversial legislation. Dale Carnegie is also worth a read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People#Twelve_Ways_to_Win_People_to_Your_Way_of_Thinking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influenc...
- pbreit 12y ago
  Not only are people sick and tired of your dead horse, some of the folks here are on the other side of your lawsuit (or close). So don't be surprised when you don't get the red carpet.
  - thinkcomp 12y ago
    I don't think I ever said I was surprised. Just because I commented on the dynamic doesn't mean I find it shocking.
    - jacquesm 12y ago
      Word to the wise: don't pollute HN like this or you risk alienating those that were seeing things your way (or at least, had a bit more balance than just black/white).
      - thinkcomp 12y ago
        I'm not trying to win a popularity contest. I'm trying to make a point about ethics that no one wants to hear. Still not one person has addressed any of my initial concerns.
        jacquesm 12y ago
        > I'm not trying to win a popularity contest. No, that much is clear. What is clear is that you have an axe to grind and have lost perspective as to what is and is not a proper venue for making your point (you're suing, what else do you want to do?), and that your concerns are now a matter of court review so whatever someone here has to say about it (including Sam Altman) has no importance at all. Ethics have relatively little to do with your complaint, you contend that it should be illegal, that does not mean that it is ethical or not to engage in said practice. Lots of things that are legal are not ethical and vice versa, but by involving the courts you have made your battleground the legal aspect, not the ethical one. The one that does not want to hear it seems in this case is you.

waterlesscloud 12y ago

Whenever I see your username, I instantly assume you're posting something about money transmitter laws. And usually talking about something that happened to you years ago that your feel was unfair to you. Fair or unfair, that's the impression I have of your account.

joshu 12y ago

When I see you comment, you are usually using whatever topic to talk about your pet issues, which is usually money transmission. Combining your boorish focus with your unpleasant discourse makes me think, "oh god, he's here to beat his dead horse again." For what it's worth, digging into someone's profile to figure out how some background detail is relevant to your dead horse is is somewhere between "unpleasant discourse" and "creepy." I also suspect that pointing these things out to you is unlikely to yield fruit so I already know that this is my own private dead horse. I'll update my profile regardless.

thinkcomp 12y ago
I understand that you don't like what I have to say. And I understand that you, and apparently others, don't like talking or even reading, for whatever reason, about money transmission. Here's what I don't understand: you're now criticizing me for referencing something you posted on a public profile. Why did you put it there if you don't want it to be seen or considered? You're also criticizing me for raising a substantive issue especially relevant to startup founders and investors, on a forum for startup founders and investors, when you yourself are a startup founder and (it would appear from this page) investor. If you want to plug your ears and pretend that I am just some crazy person obsessed with a pet issue that has no bearing on reality, by all means go ahead. But this is exactly the ethical debate I believe needs to be had. Because I am not just a crazy person obsessed with a pet issue. I, like you, am a rather rational person looking to turn a profit from my involvement in the technology sector. And the California legislature has now put forth not one, but two bills, to amend the law that I am most concerned with because it had a material impact on my company and many others, including some of the largest in the country (ADP, PayPal, MoneyGram, etc.). Moreover, this law affects you and potentially your investments. It certainly affects Y Combinator. And there are serious ethical issues tied up in all of this, which I will continue to haul before a judge as long as I need to. So really, what are you getting at? You don't like me? No problem, you don't have to. But don't pretend that I'm doing something "creepy" when all that I'm doing is pointing out that laws actually matter.
- joshu 12y ago
  I guess my point is: you sound like a crazy person. You use tangential issues to raise things you think are important (YC ethics, my background) that nobody else seems to agree on. The creepy refers to your mode of communication, not the message specifically. I never really get to the meat of what you are saying because I find I dislike your manner of presentation. The message and the format are inseparable.