

An open letter to Sam Sethi - riklomas
http://www.paulcarr.com/an-open-letter-to-sam-sethi-on-the-occasion-of-him-completely-losing-his-mind/

======
rbanffy
Can we all please move on. There's nothing to see here.

~~~
petercooper
You're wrong. It gets even more entertaining here:

<http://robinwauters.posterous.com/the-sam-sethi-nutcase>

~~~
pclark
entertaining is one word for it. I think its ridiculous, and really offensive.
Sam is a human being - and people are tearing him apart all over the internet
- who cares if he deserves it, is _disgusting_.

I don't believe writing public letters about how he has mental health issues
helps the issue. think of the consequences _if_ he did

less scene more startups.

 _gets off soapbox_

~~~
petercooper
Yeah, they shouldn't be saying he's schizophrenic (or even mentally ill). I
bet few of them know what that even means or what damage it can cause.

But, if they want to say he's a douchebag and, importantly, they have proof,
well.. that's fair game.

------
pclark
this nonsense shouldn't be covered here

------
mst
Here's how this read to me: "I've put a huge amount of effort into trying to
mediate this dispute and get to the point where people could apologise and get
on with their lives. I almost got there but let a couple of retarded drunken
ranting emails made me lose my temper so badly I now feel the need to throw
away any chance of achieving anything positive in the situation by publishing
a retarded sober ranting blog post. Also, I am high as a kite."

------
rwolf
"The court in no way found that TechCrunch’s statements about you were false,
but simply that no-one from the company turned up to defend them."

While a default judgment is not the same as a victory, they seem reasonably
similar. I'm as upset as anyone that it's so easy to win a libel suit in
Britain, but this story has a "winner" in the popular sense (which is what I
imagine is important to this Sethi fellow).

~~~
grellas
It is only a winner if a U.S. court would ultimately conclude that the UK
courts had proper jurisdiction over the defendants. No proper jurisdiction =
no enforceable judgment (at least outside the UK).

~~~
rwolf
A recent story that agrees with you:
[http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2009/08/03/arrington-loses-
lib...](http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2009/08/03/arrington-loses-libe.html)

While it would be more mediagenic if Arrington had to fork over some cash, I
think jurisdiction is separate from the issue of who the court of popular
opinion sees are the winner.

------
pavs
Perez hilton == Paul Carr

