You know what I am observing here? Let me make a flowchart:
1. Person sees _why is "dead" => 2. Person sees social proof that _why is important and significant => 3. Person realises social requirement is to demonstrate conformity with (2), does so
Needless to say this also follows:
4. Unalone sees external threat to group => 5. Unalone realises opportunity exists to demonstrate fealty to group by attacking externality => 6. Unalone posts 2,082 word screed to HN doing so
Yeah, the guy who already had _why's quote engraved on his iPod was totally conforming right now, rather than sharing a heartwarming anecdote about how he really liked one of the things listed here.
4. Unalone sees external threat to group => 5. Unalone realises opportunity exists to demonstrate fealty to group by attacking externality => 6. Unalone posts 2,082 word screed to HN doing so
Really? I'm the person here who enjoys criticizing YC companies and Paul Graham because their reputations often get inflated. As for writing long screeds: This is hardly my first. I can't help it that I write as quickly as I talk. Unless I'm repeating myself and wasting words as I write, I figured length weren't no problem.
Ok, I can't respond anymore. I said what I thought. I still think that. I don't have the time or energy to argue with you. I should never have stepped into this puerile drama.
If PG doesn't appreciate my presence on this message board he can ban me. It's his site, fair's fair. But I can't respond to you. I could spend hours writing the history of why I think what I do. I think I could convince you that my response was reasonable. But I just don't have time.
The funny thing is, the social norm which keeps me responding to you here rather than just logging off and ignoring it is exactly the same rule _why has breached :D
It is puerile drama. _why enacted his attention seeking stunt, and what do you guys do? Shower him with attention.
Deleting your blog is a pussy move and I have no qualms letting you know that fact.
There's nothing to debate. This is teenage-level stuff, complete with teenage-level temper tantrums and teenage-level poetry. It warrants nothing but contempt.
The funny thing is, you're trying to paint me as some kind of prick here, but you'll be exactly the same sooner or later. If you retain any honesty at all you'll call out bullshit as bullshit whenever you see it, and pretension as pretension likewise. The even funnier thing is, I really like _why and greatly appreciate his efforts. What I do not appreciate is this Michael Jackson-like circus of hangers on, all trying to outdo each other in post facto adoration. Fuck that shit, unalone.
Yeah, disappearing completely is attention-seeking. _why could not have left more quietly if he tried. No grand announcement, no farewell. He's gone. The fact that people exploded around him is entirely because a lot of people decided _why was worth an explosion of interest. Don't blame the guy for wanting to go.
How is ending a blog a pussy move? I wrote it for a year. In May I decided I didn't need it anymore, so I told my blog readers I was ending it, gave them my email address, and a month later took it offline, saving the archives in downloadable format for people who wanted it.
This is teenage-level stuff, complete with teenage-level temper tantrums and teenage-level poetry.
I find this really funny, since you're the person who had a mini-tantrum and I'm the teenager who told you to quit it. It's also funny because my social scene includes teenage poets who've won national awards, so my concept of teenage poetry's a bit different from yours.
If you retain any honesty at all you'll call out bullshit as bullshit whenever you see it, and pretension as pretension likewise.
I don't really believe _why was pretentious. I think that your insulting the OP was bullshit, so I called it out. I also think I called you a cunt, so it's not like I was pulling punches. I just don't believe in unchecked aggression. It's hurtful and immature.
So you know the right way to disappear. With notice, with contact, with archives. In doing so you were much quieter than _why's "out with a bang" tactic.
Interestingly, I won an award for poetry when I was a teenager. I assure you the poem was not "turtles and goats, turtles and goats, turtles and goats are filling up boats."
Why was gifted, but like all gifted children he was also lazy and went straight for the payoff by tossing out any old random crap he knew would get the reaction he wanted. Mixed in with his genuine contributions, these annoying one-offs have been promoted to the same level as everything else. That annoys me, as does people pretending they're the same.
And I didn't insult the OP, or didn't mean to anyway. Geeze - why do you think that criticising something someone did is the same thing as criticising that person? It's not. I have nothing against the OP. I have nothing against _why. I have nothing against you! Yes, the OP did something silly, IMO. _why too. And you've said some dumb things, to me. But we're all on the same side in the final reckoning. Let's not blow it out of proportion.
_why wasn't writing a poem. He was having a bit of fun on Twitter, and this dude liked it. I doubt _why thought much about what people would think about what he tweeted before he tweeted it.
Let's call it a day and go do non-flaming stuff for a while. I disagree with your perspective on _why, but that's alright, I don't think he cares much about this debate either way.
You know what I am observing here? Let me make a flowchart:
1. Person sees _why is "dead" => 2. Person sees social proof that _why is important and significant => 3. Person realises social requirement is to demonstrate conformity with (2), does so
Needless to say this also follows:
4. Unalone sees external threat to group => 5. Unalone realises opportunity exists to demonstrate fealty to group by attacking externality => 6. Unalone posts 2,082 word screed to HN doing so
Simple as that really. Brb, I have more to say.