When someone replies to a statement you made by calling you names, they're implicitly saying that's it's true. Otherwise they could have shown why you were wrong.
-
does that include 'hater' and 'loser' as names? Did you ever read this?https://medium.com/@girlziplocked/paul-graham-is-still-asking-to-be-eaten-5f021c0c0650 …
If you replied to someone's argument merely by calling them a hater, that would indeed be a weak response. But there's nothing wrong with talking about the concept of haters. They are a very real phenomenon. http://paulgraham.com/fh.html
-
-
"Paul Graham is one of those plutocrats whose thirst to be recognized as a thoughtleader among his peers is obvious." Literally the last thing I think of when I think PG. First thing to mind is reading Ramen Profitable 10 year ago, then selling 1mm of SaaS software. (thx btw)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That post is an extended way of calling a large number of people who disagree with you names at once, without being specific. But then you can rely on the fan boys to be specific, while you maintain your de haut en bas stance.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.