4 ms·

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 w

by joshu 13y 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 13y 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 13y 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.
  - thinkcomp 13y ago
    Again, what you consider a "tangential issue" is directly linked to a $5 billion dollar lawsuit over interchange fees (actually, several, that's just the latest one). Where I come from, that amount of money is not "tangential." It's core. I think ethics are important. I don't really know much about your background. But it's disingenuous of you to claim that it's irrelevant when you're an investor with links to Walmart. The only reason I sound like a crazy person to you is because, as you admit, you "never really get to the meat of what [I'm] saying." That's easily remedied by actually reading what's written, as opposed to just scoffing and writing me off as crazy. As for format, I've tried just about everything there is, but I'm open to suggestions. In any event, my approach seems to be working, whether you want to admit it or not: http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_2209&sess=CUR&house=B http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_2209&...
    - joshu 13y ago
      I guess my point is that it just seems like you are using any relevant point to talk about your own issues. Conversation is a give and take, not an infinite loop. I never claimed that ethics weren't important. I am saying that your mode of presentation is tiresome and makes your point impenetrable.
      - thinkcomp 13y ago
        And it seems like you are flippantly excusing Y Combinator's ethical double standard because you're not interested in hearing about how pervasive unethical behavior is in the industry from a person you've never met but you're pretty sure you don't like, no matter how much evidence is a click away. Tiresome indeed.

by joshu 13y ago

thinkcomp 13y 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 13y 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.
- thinkcomp 13y ago
  Again, what you consider a "tangential issue" is directly linked to a $5 billion dollar lawsuit over interchange fees (actually, several, that's just the latest one). Where I come from, that amount of money is not "tangential." It's core. I think ethics are important. I don't really know much about your background. But it's disingenuous of you to claim that it's irrelevant when you're an investor with links to Walmart. The only reason I sound like a crazy person to you is because, as you admit, you "never really get to the meat of what [I'm] saying." That's easily remedied by actually reading what's written, as opposed to just scoffing and writing me off as crazy. As for format, I've tried just about everything there is, but I'm open to suggestions. In any event, my approach seems to be working, whether you want to admit it or not: http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_2209&sess=CUR&house=B http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_2209&...
  - joshu 13y ago
    I guess my point is that it just seems like you are using any relevant point to talk about your own issues. Conversation is a give and take, not an infinite loop. I never claimed that ethics weren't important. I am saying that your mode of presentation is tiresome and makes your point impenetrable.
    - thinkcomp 13y ago
      And it seems like you are flippantly excusing Y Combinator's ethical double standard because you're not interested in hearing about how pervasive unethical behavior is in the industry from a person you've never met but you're pretty sure you don't like, no matter how much evidence is a click away. Tiresome indeed.