Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

You aren't actually listening to what I am saying, so it should be no surprise that I am not listening to what you are saying.

Do you see how this works?




Your argument is that I'm tiresome. My argument is that you're ignorant, and perhaps willfully so. I think we can leave it at that.


If you are having trouble getting your point across, it's probably you.

I don't think I even disagree with the issues you point out. It's just that I hate the way you present them.


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.

The feeling is mutual.


Why, then, are you surprised how people react to you here?


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.

Is that better?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: