Live data from Hacker News

Last.fm: "Techcrunch are full of shit"

blog.last.fm

101–107 of 107 posts

Re: Last.fm: "Techcrunch are full of shit"

#101
post #81
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

who knows if that really happened, or if Arrington was just linkbaiting to make money

Don't people realize that more than one person writes for TechCrunch. Erick Schonfeld was the sole author of the Last.fm TechCrunch article. Arrington had nothing to do with it and is still on vacation.

Arrington hired him and could fire him.

Re: Last.fm: "Techcrunch are full of shit"

#102
post #96
post #88

The most disappointing thing is that the TC writer is clinging to his story. After a complete denial he is still trying to suggest there is some truth in the rumor. Either produce the hard evidence or apologise.

Link?

Err the TC article...

"Despite my attempts to corroborate it and the subsequent detail I’ve been able to gather, I still don’t have enough information to determine whether it is absolutely true. But I still don’t have enough information to determine that it is absolutely false either."

Is his last word on the matter. Essentially he is saying they have denied it but his "rumor" may even still be true.

That smacks of a lie somewhere along the line to me (and as it is my job to find lies I suspect it is the case). :)

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/02/20/did-lastfm-just-hand-ov...

Re: Last.fm: "Techcrunch are full of shit"

#106
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually a corporation is, legally, an individual.

Unless I'm mistaken, that absurd notion is only entertained in the US.

Nope. I am British and used to be a journalist. The first place I worked had a very large sign on the wall:

"Companies are singular".

Which indeed they are, although staffed by multiple individuals.

Re: Last.fm: "Techcrunch are full of shit"

#107
post #84
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, what would you answer aggression with, then? Some aggressors may be turned aside by reason, but what about those who just, for instance, dislike your face? If you're not in a position to flee the situation, what are you going to do?

I just ignore stuff like that when it happens. I've been lucky enough never to have to be in a situation where I've had to do anything more. I got my black belt when I was something like twelve, though, so if necessary I'd do what I had to then get away. But I don't like the thought of violence: I'd never find it necessary. People drop things if you ignore them.

We have to agree to disagree here. There are people who take reluctance to fight for weakness. And even if you are really the turn the other cheek sort, what if you are not the one being threatened, but someone close to you? Would you still find violence unnecessary then?
Post reply on HN