that being said you're not addressing my challenge, that this thing
>That's what blogs are for.
isn't actually the case.
take for example your characterization of this kind of miscellany
>shitty first drafts of things
can you name another medium/form/forum where authors publish "shitty first drafts"? why is blogging different? because it is ephemeral and has 0 mass by virtue of being digital?
on the contrary take something like twitter, for example, and compare its relative weight, ephemerality, inchoateness to your blog posts; tweets are very much fair game for all any kind of engagement.
you could also publish anonymously. you have a choice. so does he.
here's your partial response
>I don't own the post anymore and can't unpublish it. But even if I could: it's annoying that I can't just post my shitty first drafts of things to some random website and not have them get periodically featured on a huge, busy community. That's what blogs are for.
the first sentence does directly address it (choice) wrt to you and your blog (not pg's which he owns).
but the last sentence
>That's what blogs are for.
even according to you
>But even if I could
is the crux of what's at issue. and this you have not addressed anywhere that i can see
(And, for the nth time, I have just a teeny tiny sample of the problem Paul Graham has! It's not like what I write is all that popular. Paul Graham has a rabid fan base here.)