The all-caps sarcasm here seems predictive of the complete factual inaccuracy of what follows. PG posted the Mark Twain article in 2004.
Your quibble over the precise date of the post seems predictive of an inability to deal with the larger points raised.
Since you used the date to falsely justify an ad hominem—the polar opposite of a "larger point"—it's not a quibble how wrong you got it.
The two postings are directly related and not an attack based on his wearing of red shirts on thursdays.
From the wikipedia """Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.[3]"""
Actually just a bit of research was needed, but I've done that for you: Internet Archive[1] and previous Hacker News discussion[2].
If you want people to take your points seriously I wouldn't recommend such unnecessary and unwarranted sarcasm.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.paulgraham.com/corn...
I was factually confused by this undated repost, but what was unneccessary or unwarranted?
Does the timing in posts make this deeply self involved opinion ok?