Even more ironically, you're engaging in approximately the same behavior I wrote about downthread.
What's especially telling is that 5 (admittedly short) grafs, you've failed to address a single point I actually made, but rather tried to summon a gestalt of all my comments so you could tackle them in the abstract.
Want to take another stab at responding? I'm all ears.
What you're saying here is that the right response to what you believe is a superficial criticism of a Rolling Stone article (or the collected works of its author) is a direct attack on the HN commenter who wrote it.
Why not make your argument more credible by taking down my supposedly superficial comment? Wouldn't that be a much more interesting and constructive argument?
He didn't "attack" you, he simply noted your usual character assassination attempt whenever someone speaks out against some establishment. Speaking of irony you didn't even bother to challenge any of the article's arguments. This reminds me of the time you attacked Dan Lyon for writing this article https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4866914
You didn't challenge any of his points or reasoning there either. Interestingly enough you did exactly what you seem to be condemning the above poster for: summon a gestalt of his points in the article and attack them in the abstract.
Matt Taibbi and Dan Lyons. An astute HN reader trying to suss out my petty little scheme might instead point to the gun next to the barrel where I'm getting you to stack the fish.
Would you like to stick up for Taibbi's financial reporting? I think I've set you up nicely for a takedown comment: as someone observed downthread, all I've done is make a bunch of assertions without supporting evidence.
Who they are and the difference caliber or prestige has nothing to do with the argument. I only mentioned that situation to further illustrate the trend justsee was pointing out, which you still have not bothered rebutting. You're still using worthless ad hominem attacks, just as you do whenever an article promotes a crowd vs. establishment discussion.
To be honest his comment is pretty accurate; you regularly come along for these types of articles as some sort of watchdog, and predictably attack the author's character in some way to discredit the article (especially if its generally criticizing the SV startup scene), instead of directly attacking the author's arguments and reasoning, which would be much more meaningful. I'm curious as to why?
What's especially telling is that 5 (admittedly short) grafs, you've failed to address a single point I actually made, but rather tried to summon a gestalt of all my comments so you could tackle them in the abstract.
Want to take another stab at responding? I'm all ears.