Hacker News Reader

Comment by lionhearted | Hacker News Reader

Well, that's a shame. You're a smart commentor on here and seem like a decent guy, so I'd enjoy you reading my site if there was value in it for you.

Alas though, I can't take random delete requests because a point was controversial. I certainly overstepped my bounds with that post and publicly apologized, and also offered to Patrick - and him alone - that I'd take it down if he preferred. He didn't ask me to, so I didn't.

I wrote a long reply here with my thoughts and lessons -

http://www.sebastianmarshall.com/lessons-learned-from-a-fire...

And, of course I can't just delete a post because someone is offended, or we'd never discuss anything controversial.

I respect you taking a principled stand, and it's a kind of a bummer that a smart guy doesn't read my site any more. But life goes on. Can please some of the people some of the time, and all that...

View on HN

> and also offered to Patrick - and him alone - that I'd take it down if he preferred. He didn't ask me to, so I didn't.

You can read that in many different ways. The way I read it does not make you look very good.

Of course he didn't ask you to. Try putting yourself in his position. He has to ask (beg?) you to remove something that should have never happened in the first place?

Does it make you good when people whose name and reputation you use to raise your own visibility then have to come crawling to you to please remove the stuff you write?

When you wrote that piece you were just being silly. After truly grokking why it was a stupid piece leaving it up is malicious, not accidental.

So, don't be a jerk, take it down. Leaving it up doesn't diminish Patrick in any way, but it sure diminishes you.

I appreciate that you're sharing your perspective here, but we see this about 180 degrees differently. This, for instance -

> When you wrote that piece you were just being silly. After truly grokking why it was a stupid piece

Actually, I stand by every point I wrote in that piece and the followup - the problem was in involving another person without clearing it with them, which was out of line.

But all the points stand and no malice was intended. Beyond that, I explicitly asked by email if he wanted it deleted - no asking or begging required.

> So, don't be a jerk, take it down. Leaving it up doesn't diminish Patrick in any way, but it sure diminishes you.

Reasonable minds can disagree. I stand by all the points in that post, apologized for the impoliteness of involving someone else before it clearing it with them, but if you're trying to honestly explore controversial ideas, you simply can't just delete things you stand by because an unrelated third party thinks it should be done.

In any event, cheers for sharing your perspective - we're in about 180 degree philosophical disagreement here, but you did make some good points worth thinking about.

Really smart people are capable of admitting they are wrong and acting upon it.

If you already realize you were out of line then why can't you act on it?

Is being the third hit for 'Patrick McKenzie' in google worth the continued damage to your reputation?

The only controversial bit in your posting was the fact that you used a well known HN'er with an extremely good reputation and a nice guy to boot and attempted to use his reputation for your own gain, in the process turning what would have been a possibly interesting piece into the low point of HN over the time of its existence.

That blight will soil your reputation forever more and it will cause me and people like me (no idea how many of those there are, maybe they'e a minority, maybe not) to remember as long as that piece is up. Its continued presence on the web shows that you have not learned yet.

You go on and on about philosophy and appreciation, if you really had some class you'd realize how silly this discussion is and that it should have never gotten this far. You can't build your reputation by kicking others or dragging their personal life in to the spotlight. Your points should stand on their own without reference to other people.

You could have made your points just as effectively without naming Patrick, but then that would not have gotten you the eyeballs that it did.

Cheap, cynical.

Standing by that is just dumb.

But keep at it, time will tell if you're right or not in persisting in doing this.

> If you already realize you were out of line then why can't you act on it?

I did.

> That blight will soil your reputation forever more

Okay dude, now you're being silly. This is why people can't have reasonable discussions on the internet - I take a moment to respectfully acknowledge your points, think through them, and explain why I disagree, and you keep melodramatic ranting.

You don't like how I handled it? Okay, noted. But this is why people just ignore criticism - I respond with my thinking to you in good faith, and you keep ranting about "dumb" "blight will soil your reputation forever more", "Cheap, cynical", "dumb" - and you're attributing malicious intent where it isn't there.

Before you reply, stop and reflect - I've addressed all of your points and then some, and I disagree with you, but I've tried to be reasonable and respectful. If you want to insult people that do that, you won't get anyone responding to your discussions any more. Indeed, that's what happens on most internet forums eventually - people who do things publicly just stop responding to anonymous critics, because they don't tend to lead to reasonable discussions.

Actually, I'm glad you left it up. Otherwise I wouldn't have had the opportunity to read it.

Of course it's impolite to use someone's name like that without clearing it first, but otherwise your greater message was spot on.

I'm still partially mired in executing below my potential, but I'm working on it, and your piece provided me with more inspirational kick. Thank you.

Also, I've lived the Japanese salaryman life, so I know how it tends to shape you and blind your ambition.

Why should he take it down?

I don't know anything about this whole controversy, but as far as I can see it, he's right about Patrick.

Also, I couldn't find anything offensive or malicious, so I don't really get your problem here..

Because putting the onus for removal on Patrick is a dick thing to do.

After all, Patrick owes Sebastian exactly nothing, Sebastian writing this piece does not oblige Patrick to ask for a removal or even to communicate with him on the subject.

It basically says "I will create a clever little boundary that I know will never be met so I get my way".

From Sebastian's account, he made it very easy for Patrick to have it taken down. Since it was Patrick who he hurt, he wanted Patrick to have the choice whether it stayed up or down. That seems fair and right to me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com