He said, "I read that thing that Paul wrote saying that anybody who contributes regularly is going to fare better. That's shit from a bull."
All I said was the above, and you started accusing me of editing my posts. Why? I thought you'd say, "OH, I see why you think he should apologize to Paul."
How DARE you call me a liar? You work in a PR firm, so you use WORDS. I use LOGIC.
The point of my thread was that the author was being a jerk to Paul and should apologize. When I posted the quote where it's clear the author is insulting Paul, you got all uppity about it.
"your initial comment said that the author should apologize for comparing Paul to the musician."
At what point did I deny that I "compared Paul to the musician?" I never claimed I never said that. I simply replied to you and posted his quote you might have missed where the author said "YC is a waste of time" and also says, Paul is a bull who speaks "shit". That's why I said the author should apologize.
The author obviously meant to say Steve instead of Paul, in the intro. I didn't confuse that part of the article like you arrogantly believed. The reason I compared the two is because the user shows disdain and hate for the YC, so much he even confused his friend and Paul's names, when the two had nothing to do with one another.
You work in public relations so you're probably very good at attacking people. You're a liar and exaggerate by trade.
Do you understand it now? Or are you attacking me just because you're a PR person trying to test your training?
(Back to where it was) The author unfairly compared Paul to a young musician's experience, said Paul speaks Bull, and that the YC is a waste of time. He also insults the reader. The author should apologize.
All I said was the above, and you started accusing me of editing my posts. Why? I thought you'd say, "OH, I see why you think he should apologize to Paul."