Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Some things need to change

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 209 posts

Re: Some things need to change

#141

Post by ensignavenger »

Personally, I commend Micheal on not punching the guy that spit upon him in the face. I;m certain it took a great deal of self restraint. I would have likely taken it as an immediate threat of harm, and beat the tar out of the guy. (I have learned to control my temper much better over the years, but there are some things that are intolerable.)

I would also recommend he go to Front Sight and get the training to protect himself and his family (from the death threats, not the spitter).

Re: Some things need to change

#142

Post by zhyder »

mattmaroon wrote: post #111
zhyder wrote: post #2

This is terrible, worse than people speculating about Steve Jobs' health, as an example of how low folks in our industry can go. (I know they're unrelated but the 2 evoke the same emotions in me.) I desperately want Michael Arrington to cover my startup as well, but I still can't understand those that threatened or spat on him. Michael, I hope you return to regular writing after Feb, but if you don't, thanks for all…

I see nothing at all morally wrong with speculating over Steve's health (though it's often not very useful). Remember that every AAPL owner is a part owner of the company. It's not at all untoward for an investor in the company to want to know what health the CEO is in, especially one thought to be as influential as him, and Jobs has been opaque about it since the beginning. A lot of people have, collectively, over $…

Worrying about his health if you own stock in AAPL is understandable. But there was just something tabloid-like about _how_ people approached it; just didn't feel right.

Re: Some things need to change

#143

Post by Xichekolas »

hk wrote: post #90
jncraton wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is somewhat unfortunate that this isn't in the guidelines, but it is a natural tendency and would be impossible to try to clean up by enforcement. Eventually, you will get used to the general group mentality. Some things can be said in a very few words and will be understood and accepted because they follow the way that most of us think. Other things have to be laid out logically so that a debate on your thinking…

Yeah, I guess I'm more used to slashdot. I'll take some time to get used to the culture of the site before poking the nest with a stick again. I assume you're a moderator - although they're much appreciated by myself, these well-written tips will just get lost in the noise here. You might consider adding them to the FAQ yourself : )

Just to chime in, it's generally counter-productive to meta-post about being downmodded, unless your meta-post is clarifying something that might be misinterpreted into a downmod.

For example, saying: "I can't believe you people are downmodding me." will most likely just cause people to pile on and punish you.

But saying: "To those downmodding me, if you think I meant this, I really meant that." or "Just to clarify, I meant it this way." will often defuse a misunderstanding and cause people to at least put you back up to 1.

Really the key is to be civil. It's rare that someone gets dogpiled just for dissenting. However, if you dissent in a rude manner, people are tempted to see how negative one comment can get.

Re: Some things need to change

#144

Post by zhyder »

biohacker42 wrote: post #89
zhyder wrote: post #2

This is terrible, worse than people speculating about Steve Jobs' health, as an example of how low folks in our industry can go. (I know they're unrelated but the 2 evoke the same emotions in me.) I desperately want Michael Arrington to cover my startup as well, but I still can't understand those that threatened or spat on him. Michael, I hope you return to regular writing after Feb, but if you don't, thanks for all…

an example of how low folks in our industry can go There's nothing special about our industry, crazy people are everywhere. It's a simple numbers game, become popular enough and your popularity will cover some number of mentally unstable individuals. Actresses, singers and presidents have all been shot for no other reason then they were famous. Public criticism or lack of coverage probably makes things worse for Arri…

Actresses, singers and presidents are a little different though. Actresses/singers want much of the popularity, but struggle to maintain the right balance. And presidents -well- many folks have logical reasons to want them dead. I can't see the logic behind wanting Michael Arrington dead though, and I don't think he wants to be popular himself (as much as to make his blog/events popular).

And somehow I hope our industry is special, that we're less likely to do crazy things in general. We're trained in science and reasoning after all. How many techies do you know that are rabid fans of celebrities?

Re: Some things need to change

#145

Post by pclark »

adrianwaj wrote: post #110
pclark wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why does everyone think startups are doomed if they get a bad TC review? There's a perfect example of this THIS WEEK! Arrington has been ripping into Cha Cha for years, and they just got a massive funding round.

"why does everyone think startups are doomed if they get a bad TC review?" Who says they're not! When's the last time TC linked to another blog in a post. Hat tips etc.?

they link to venture beat, scobelizer, sillicon alley insider quite a lot, I think.

Re: Some things need to change

#146

Post by rbanffy »

mattmaroon wrote: post #111
zhyder wrote: post #2

This is terrible, worse than people speculating about Steve Jobs' health, as an example of how low folks in our industry can go. (I know they're unrelated but the 2 evoke the same emotions in me.) I desperately want Michael Arrington to cover my startup as well, but I still can't understand those that threatened or spat on him. Michael, I hope you return to regular writing after Feb, but if you don't, thanks for all…

I see nothing at all morally wrong with speculating over Steve's health (though it's often not very useful). Remember that every AAPL owner is a part owner of the company. It's not at all untoward for an investor in the company to want to know what health the CEO is in, especially one thought to be as influential as him, and Jobs has been opaque about it since the beginning. A lot of people have, collectively, over $…

Not only that. Think about those who have MSFT stock. Where will MSFT copy stuff from if APPL ceases to innovate due to the health of its main driving force ;-) ?

Re: Some things need to change

#147

Post by hollerith »

hk wrote: post #15

Spitting in his face is going a bit far, but it's pretty difficult for me to feel sympathy for the guy. I struggle to think of a more dislikable, arrogant jerk. This belated plea for human-to-human sympathy falls on deaf ears, for me at least. In my group, Arrington symbolises everything we hate about the "Web 2.0" greed culture. He's relentlessly promoted himself as the gatekeeper to this bullshit world of easy VC m…

Would you still be delighted if the person had spit into the cream pie before throwing it?

Re: Some things need to change

#148

Post by Retric »

zhyder wrote: post #144
biohacker42 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

an example of how low folks in our industry can go There's nothing special about our industry, crazy people are everywhere. It's a simple numbers game, become popular enough and your popularity will cover some number of mentally unstable individuals. Actresses, singers and presidents have all been shot for no other reason then they were famous. Public criticism or lack of coverage probably makes things worse for Arri…

Actresses, singers and presidents are a little different though. Actresses/singers want much of the popularity, but struggle to maintain the right balance. And presidents -well- many folks have logical reasons to want them dead. I can't see the logic behind wanting Michael Arrington dead though, and I don't think he wants to be popular himself (as much as to make his blog/events popular). And somehow I hope our indus…

He is an entertainer in that he leverages popularity to make money.

Re: Some things need to change

#149

Post by smhinsey »

Harkins wrote: post #118
trickjarrett wrote: post #53

Arrington gets a lot of shit. I mean honestly he's a journalist. The core problem is that when someone's livelihood is on the line, people change. When someone is out of work looking for a job, there are usually two responses to a rejection: depression or anger. TechCrunch (and Arrington to a lesser extent these days) get hundreds of tips or requests for coverage from companies and when TC passes them over, these peo…

Generally Arrington hasn't been respected by the journalists I've met. He covers companies and fields he has a direct financial interest in, he's OK with posting rumor and innuendo, and he can be sensationalist. The first one is a big problem, the others are mostly style things. Faking photos like http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/01/27/cal-to-offer-course-in-... is totally uncool. (I'm not speaking here about my cowork…

Sounds like we might work for the same news organization with a content sharing agreement with TC. I was appalled/not surprised at all when that happened.

Re: Some things need to change

#150

Post by adrianwaj »

pclark wrote: post #145
adrianwaj wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"why does everyone think startups are doomed if they get a bad TC review?" Who says they're not! When's the last time TC linked to another blog in a post. Hat tips etc.?

they link to venture beat, scobelizer, sillicon alley insider quite a lot, I think.

Arrington thinks he owns the internet. I don't hold it against him, I don't hate him in the slightest. You have to have balls to put up with the stuff he cops.
Post reply on HN