Ironically, I don't find much that I dislike about Paul Graham. But the cult of PG is another matter.

If you read my posts you will find that I always provide an alternative solution and generally argue for why it is a better solution. Dont' get VC funding- you don't need it, you can lease the infrastrcture you need, and use open source tools. I even quoted PG saying essentialyl the same thing-- yet this position is the number one thing that people argue with me about here.

I do find it curious that the primary argument made against me is the fallacy of authority: "But people who are clearly more experienced and successful than you seem to disagree."

I am not making any arguments based on my success, and you certainly don't know my level of success or lack of it. But you sure seem to think you do.

":and yet they seem to think YC is an amazing opportunity that they would have loved to have when starting out."

The thing that most makes this community cult-like is the constant reliance of repeated ideology. The third time you hear the same "Argument" you start to wonder if everyone isn't reading from the same textbook. (And this text book seems to be full of appeals to authority.)

And the worst thing is that there's an ideology here!

Why does it have to be combative? Why does anyone who provies a different opinion need to be attacked or percieved as attacking?

You start off by impunging my motives... but I am more tame than Paul Graham is. Do you question the motives of his essays simply because he's not tame? Again, colored perception.

"clearly more experienced and successful than you"

You know, I think that's the core of it-- Paul had a mild success, and he's written a lot of opinionated articles. The cult of personality is therefore one that worships success... I haven't bragged about my success, I've argued without appeal to authority. But that carries less weight, doesn't it?

You did try to list your credentials in the Reddit thread IIRC. And I'm not judging your success and experience against Paul Graham's -- I'm judging it against Paul Graham, Joe Kraus, Evan Williams, Mitch Kapor, Mark Fletcher, Joshua Schacter, Paul Buchheit, etc. All of these people have practically endorsed YC as a Good Thing(TM) and have supported it by meeting with the founders and giving them advice.

You're asking why it feels "combative" and yet your posts basically say that anyone who thinks YC is a good deal is an inexperience make-money-fast cult zombie kid. Surprised?

You'd get a lot more positive response if you went a bit easier on the insulting language and condescension. I don't think that's what you're after though. I think you're enjoying being the outspoken contrarian too much. Enjoy.

You are still trying to make a fallacious argument from authority, and are attempting to insult me for not doing the same?

I'm making my points, and if you will notice, I'm generally rather generous with the person I'm disagreeing with. Unfortunately this is not sufficient, as simply having a differnet opinion is the problem here, and the result is that people make insinuations on the persons character because they have a differnet opinion-- as I called you on and as you have not yet withdrawn, despite being more conciliatory in this message.

Or put another way- the problem is people are offended at someone having a differnet opinion.

If I told you I was Tony Robbins and I was a multi-millionaire., would that sway you? I doubt it because, despite being someone who has been successful at business, he's likely not going to garner respect.

You should evaluated arguments-- technological or not-- on their logic, reason and scientific basis. And this is why those are the only kind of arguments I will make.

The counter arguments, however, tend to be naming "Authorities"... rathre than making logical or reasoned arguments.