> Nothing in this blog post is factual.

So VCF doesn’t have those plastic boxes any more?

I can't speak to that as I haven't been involved in two years.

But they were there two years ago, so I'll correct myself say almost the entirety of the blog post is false.

So, the author did not donate magazines? The magazines were not disposed of? There were not many asserted facts in the post. Which exact ones were lies?

FYI GP is now claiming they never called the author a liar.

> I offered to privately explain what really happened on Twitter (X) and was blocked as a result and made out to be accusing OP of being a liar.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40022739

What does "checked for archiving" mean? Is this collection available to the public in any way?

Checked for archiving means that everything was checked to see if it was already archived. The collection was popular computer magazines that have long ago been archived. Nothing unique, which is likely why the donation was made in the first place. The blog post implies there was something unique about this donation. There was not. If you know anything about the work of the author of the blog post, you wouldn't even be able to imagine him placing something with historical value in a venue like the VCF warehouse. There was no historical value.

It just took up space that was ultimately used to save more important items, like actual computers, and was in a venue that was absolutely hostile to paper. So the paper found better homes. The statement that it was thrown away is factually incorrect. The implication that somehow history was lost is also incorrect.

wouldn't a warehouse near the ocean also be bad for electronic parts/metals?

Literally nothing about that comment makes sense. The bullshit stench is strong.

if this person is legit (amichlin), they did absolutely nothing to support their position.

> The statement that it was thrown away is factually incorrect.

I get coming on here to correct the record, but why the hostility toward the author when the factually incorrect statement was made to him by someone at VCF? Or are you suggesting he’s lying about what he was told?

Were you party to the review of the material or the disposition of it afterwards in your capacity as a warehouse volunteer?

I only ask because you seem to be relaying details with an air of authority but not engaging with important follow-up comments. The posted link mentions "mostly IEEE related" and "few other sets of titles" which I imagine all being behind the IEEE Digital Library paywall. Even if it's just Spectrum and maybe interesting SIG (Special Interest Group) publications, those being made available freely seems like a win? But this is all just my guessing and hope to find some clarification about what happened if we aren't supposed to take the posted link as fact.

Confusing a collection of "mostly IEEE-related but with a few other sets of titles" papers with a collection of "popular computer magazines that have long ago been archived," with "no historical value," seems like exactly the sort of mistake Jason Scott would not make.

> As a former warehouse volunteer at VCF in Wall, NJ, I can attest that this blog post consists of only conjecture and no facts.

The single most important piece of information in the blog post is that he was told the materials were disposed of. That’s either true, or is a lie—I fail to see an interpretation of that that could be called “conjecture”.

Jason Scott appears to have said:

- He donated some stuff.

- He was told the papers were tossed.

That's not conjecture. It could be false, but why would Jason Scott decide to lie about being told this? That just makes no sense. The best thing I can think of is that there was some severe communication breakdown, but if that's the case this is really not a good response, because it implies that Jason is intentionally just making shit up and I don't understand why anyone would assume that.

I am not saying anything regarding the papers having been tossed, and I would like to believe your version of the events where they were not. However, Jason having apparently been told the papers were tossed is fully 100% compatible with that also having not actually happened, and presumably you weren't the one to communicate with Jason in that situation, so how exactly do you know?

@amichlin, do you have a rebuttal to these comments?

My impression is that you hastily defended a former employer, and when questioned, you started making things up.

I think you are actually formerly connected to VCF, since a twitter user (Adam Michlin) sharing your username is currently flaming the OP: https://twitter.com/amichlin/status/1778494138138124432

You lie! Yes, you were a former * volunteer * there, so you were only privy to certain things. I was the person * in charge * at the time, as Jason noted in his blog post.

>> It should never have been donated and should never have been accepted (under previous management).

I recall that you were too busy, in your volunteer days there, running your mouth and telling me how to do my job. Yet the problems VCF has now never happened under my watch.