And outraged that readers are leaving thoughtful comments on his sight; their unpaid contributions are creating value, and such Websploitation should not go unpunished!
Here's a clue for the author: Many people do things for reasons other than money.
> I'm angry that people like him are constantly getting a platform to complain about about how terrible their great lives are.
Well this is your platform, and look what you choose to do with it.
> You were married, you live in a house, you have enough to eat, are healthy and you write columns for newspapers but damn, if only you werent so lonely.
"How dare you experience the complexities of the human condition and express it with such eloquence!"
> it is not okay to complain about being rich while people around you die.
If I read correctly, he seems to be lamenting that which you deem so important - the death of his wife.
In your self-righteous appraisal of who is more deserving of empathy, you've forgotten your own. That's sad.
His tantrum is so childish it is embarrassing. He responds to himself complaining about the response his whiny ad hominem comment received. The ironic icing on the cake is that he is complaining about how far HN has fallen!
> I dunno, aren't people a bunch of morons when you really get down to it? Like, isn't that a legitimate complaint too?
It's still unproductive to say that in a community support space.
Who's the bigger moron, the moron or the guy holding a public grudge for over a year about how unfair it is they're not letting him in the channel full of morons?
>Isn't the most logical assumption that I run one?
It was incredibly obvious from your first post that the person lambasting others for "reacting emotionally" was likely a host who might feel just a bit threatened by this news and buries their head in the sand when one of their sources of income pisses off others. "I'd rather keep getting mine, consequences to others be damned, fuck you very much."
> pg's response is actually priceless: it is like a soft-spoken witness upending a bullying lawyer who had just viciously attacked him, leaving the attacker reeling for all to see.
What's with the almost cult-like reverence for this largely pseudo-intellectual entrepreneur?
> Why can't you get this simple logic through your head?
Everyone knows he's paid by YC and almost everyone is taking his decade long track record into consideration as an excellent moderator + that he literally didn't do anything wrong here. You're trying to defend your allegation and everyone else doesn't agree with you.
> That's really all you need to get through your head
>Sounds like a recipe for the sterile PR speak we're surrounded by. If he's angry, why shouldn't he write angry?
This guy let his rage blind him so much it's hard to actually get anything of substance out of the article. I think the only real example he gave was Thomas's video. The rest was just complaints about generic behavior towards him that I haven't ever witnessed in the last 4 years I've been on this site.
Also, it makes him sound incredibly stupid. The best insults he can come up with are that people have little dicks? What is this, high school? There are lots of much better insults around self-importance that you could easily sling at this crowd.
He is upset that his posts are acting like bait, that his likeness is getting used to scam people who wanted nothing more than to connect with someone they admire.
For a lot of people, it would be impossible not to take this personally.
> This whole blog post is a petulant child stamping his feet and crying out that it’s unfair that he’s not as well liked as he feels entitled to be.
Did we read the same post? I see someone acknowledging that there are real and valid reasons to dislike him. The main thrust is a request for accuracy when spreading information about those reasons.
It's not just this comment, but his attitude in responses in general. And personally, I find referring to someone as a drug lord counting blood money is pretty abusive.
The comment has been couched in weasel words to pretend like it's just talking about the parent comment, but the content of the message is aimed directly at the person behind the screen.
personal nitpick, but the linked post didn't read like a rant to me. seemed fairly polite, (unless you're facebook) in contrast to the sneering jab he was replying to.
reply