Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch • Hacker News Board

Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

#61

Post by iamdave » Tue, Sep 28, 2010, 5:40 PM UTC

I've always kind of disliked Arrington, thought he came off as a douche on a lot of occasions.

And yet, I'll give the man props. He started a business, hustled his arse off and made a big sale. Haters gonna hate, but good job.

Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

#62

Post by Semiapies » Tue, Sep 28, 2010, 5:41 PM UTC

jpwatts wrote: post #59

steveklabnik wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are rules in place to determine what's 'fair' and what's not 'fair.' I'm assuming Mike has played by all the rules, so it's most certainly 'fair.'

You seem to be confusing what is "fair" with what is "legal."

You seem to be confusing tax revenues with fairness.

Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

#63

Post by poet » Tue, Sep 28, 2010, 5:42 PM UTC

jpwatts wrote: post #59

steveklabnik wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are rules in place to determine what's 'fair' and what's not 'fair.' I'm assuming Mike has played by all the rules, so it's most certainly 'fair.'

You seem to be confusing what is "fair" with what is "legal."

Agreed, but it's your job as a citizen to try and pay exactly what you owe by law. If what Arrington did was legal, it wasn't wrong of him. No one should be paying more taxes than what's legally required. If there are any loopholes (so to speak), it's the role of the citizens to "exploit" them and the role of law makers to close them if necessary.

Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

#64

Post by jim_dot » Tue, Sep 28, 2010, 5:44 PM UTC

I wonder how many more Armstrongs can show up on HN's front page? Maybe get something about Hellcat Records on here and we can have two Tim Armstrongs!

Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

#65

Post by skinnymuch » Tue, Sep 28, 2010, 5:47 PM UTC

kloncks wrote: post #36

Best comment from TechCrunch: "Shouldn't Techcrunch be acquiring AOL?"

Sure AOL is not what is was before, but even when you put aside it's dying internet subscription model, it's media branch(es) still do well over a billion in revenue per year.

I had a college-bound relative bring up some random web startup he heard about from Engadget's comment section. I'm sure he has no idea that Techcrunch even exists.

Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

#66

Post by djacobs » Tue, Sep 28, 2010, 5:47 PM UTC

vaksel wrote: post #41

it's kinda funny....Techcrunch makes it a point that they don't accept press releases...and they announce their acquisition with a press release.

He doesn't even mark up the press release with semantics. Not even header tags for subheadings. What is this?

Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

#67

Post by steveklabnik » Tue, Sep 28, 2010, 5:47 PM UTC

jpwatts wrote: post #59

steveklabnik wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are rules in place to determine what's 'fair' and what's not 'fair.' I'm assuming Mike has played by all the rules, so it's most certainly 'fair.'

You seem to be confusing what is "fair" with what is "legal."

Sorry. The word 'fair' tends to get me going slightly, because I'm a competitive person. That word tends to be used by people as a crutch. For more: http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/ and specifically: http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/intermediates-guide.html

If the state of California didn't think what Arrington did was right, there'd be a law. We've built up a system of rules, we all have to follow them, Mike did, so he's in the clear.

Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

#68

Post by jw84 » Tue, Sep 28, 2010, 5:48 PM UTC

Consensus amongst my hacker community: sellout. But we all drunk some haterade this morning.

Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

#69

Post by jpwatts » Tue, Sep 28, 2010, 5:49 PM UTC

Semiapies wrote: post #62

jpwatts wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be confusing what is "fair" with what is "legal."

You seem to be confusing tax revenues with fairness.

I'm not taking a position on Arrington. I just object to the idea that legality implies fairness, by definition.

Re: Tim Armstrong: We Got TechCrunch

#70

Post by bhiggins » Tue, Sep 28, 2010, 5:50 PM UTC

ellyagg wrote: post #60

bhiggins wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fellow Washingtonians, let's consider passing I-1098 especially in this light: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/426758_fair16.html

Fellow Washingtonians, let's consider not discouraging profitable business from moving to the state and stop encouraging profitable businesses that are already here, e.g., Boeing, to move more of its operations out of state.

I agree. I-1098 also cuts the B&O tax and helps fund education. Employers need educated and skilled employees.