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 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.
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.
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:
You don't sound crazy to me, but definitely angry, which makes it painful for me to read you.
The technicalities are way over my head, but even if you're right, you're unlikely to get any reply from YC since a law suit is pending...
Unsolicited advice:
From what others say in this thread, it sounds like you're obsessed with this issue. If I understand correctly, you've been wronged and filed a law suit because of it. Let your lawyers do their thing, and move on.
Your rants cause you more pain than they cause to the people you accuse.
Thanks for the update, I was relying on your original complaint's text that "…Plaintiff's Board of Directors wishes Plaintiff’s CEO, Aaron Greenspan, to represent Think Computer Corporation in this matter before the Court", but my parenthetical qualification allowed for the chance you might have acquired lawyers later.
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.
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.
Perhaps that's because according to AngelList you're an investor in Square, which has signed two consent decrees for violating money transmission laws. That would make you a federal felon per 18 U.S.C. § 1960. And it sure would suck if my "presentation" caused you some legal trouble.
Because I'd expect someone as smart as you, with a clear financial stake in the money transmission regulatory situation, to realize that you can make more money by helping to promote reform than you can by hiding your connections to the mess and trying to shut me up.
If you haven't noticed, that strategy isn't working.
I'm not trying to shut you up. I'm trying to get you to phrase your message so that other humans will want to consume it.
How am I hiding my connections?
Accusing people of felons is probably also not a good way to rally them to your cause.
Even here you are bent on turning the discussion to your cause. I'm talking about the phrasing, not the message.
It does seem creepy that you see enemies and opposition everywhere. Good luck with your cause - you need it.
FWIW my investment in Square was small and because Jack was a friend. I'm not really injured either way, though would generally like to see laws make sense in the interest of parsimony.
Also FWIW, I think plainsite is pretty good.
Wow, news.yc makes this thread really narrow. Probably punishment for belaboring the point.
I don't see enemies and opposition everywhere. I'm not paranoid. You just happen to be an investor in at least one money transmitter and company I'm in litigation with (not to mention your Walmart involvement), and you didn't care to mention it. That would seem material and capable of altering your viewpoint. Instead you said you weren't employed.
The fact that I am supposedly "bent on turning the discussion to [my] cause" would actually suggest that I see potential partners everywhere, if anything.
As for phrasing, if the private and very polite conversations I've had with people had gone better, we never would have reached this point.
I am not involved with Walmart. I sold a company to them and did some contracting work that wasn't extended. I am no longer advising them, though I haven't bothered to update every profile everywhere. I'll go edit some more things if that makes you happy.
I retract "dead horse" and wish to replace "pet cause" - the first implies more about your cause than I really mean to.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
So you're saying that because I filed a lawsuit, which for the time being is no longer pending, I should relinquish the right to speak in public about the ethical implications raised by that lawsuit, and that any such speech is "pollution."
All I can say is that I disagree wholeheartedly.
Also, ethics have everything to do with my complaint.
If you're trying to argue that all payments startups, AirBnB and Uber are unethical because they are operating in reasonable but gray legal areas, then you're wrong.
ps you might have more luck pretending that you're trying to win a popularity contest. No one likes lamers.
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
- Supreme Court briefing requirements http://www.aarongreenspan.com/writing/essay.html?id=87
- Business schools http://www.aarongreenspan.com/writing/essay.html?id=58
- Airport security 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?