 and prestigious employment (i.e. the Entrepreneur In
Residence)?

Do you think a sane SV VC should employ a toxic person that publicly calls
Zuckerberg a psychopat?

So far he filed a bunch of frivolous lawsuits against anyone who came into
contact with him and looked at him funny. He always represents himself, so
there's no cost for him but it hurts the defendants because they have to hire
and pay for real lawyers.

His previous lawsuit has been dismissed by the judge
<http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/case.html?id=716057>

His other lawsuit (<http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/case.html?id=716056>)
is in shambles on procedural grounds because his California lawyer wants to
withdraw from the case which would leave Greenspan as the only lawyer and,
just like in this case, he sues on behalf of his company and a company can't
represent itself, so his has to have an outside counsel to proceed.

~~~
michaelochurch
_What logic compels you to conclude that if you get viciously and frivolously
sued by someone and publicly badmouthed by him (on his weblog) you should give
him a lucrative and prestigious employment (i.e. the Entrepreneur In
Residence)?_

Let's start with the fact that his startup (lawsuit) actually does more good
for society than 95% of these VC-istan social media companies (that are just
excuses to waste young peoples' careers). If nothing else, he's drawing
attention to the "we'll fund your competitors if you don't play our way"
aspect of VC-istan, pointing out the problems with a law, and one could argue
that he's (indirectly) shining light on the VC-istan collusion problem.

I'm not saying that Greenspan deserves to be a billionaire, but he's _way_
past having earned EIR-- if VC-istan were the meritocracy it claims to be.
That's an obvious fact at this point.

 _Do you think a sane SV VC should employ a toxic person that publicly calls
Zuckerberg a psychopat?_

Wait, so having a disagreement with one powerful person means that someone
deserves to be completely blacklisted
and prestigious employment (i.e. the Entrepreneur In 
 Residence)? 

 Do you think a sane SV VC should use a toxic person that publicly call 
 Zuckerberg a psychopat? 

 So far he filed a bunch of frivolous lawsuit against anyone who came into 
 contact with him and looked at him funny. He constantly represents himself, so 
 there's no monetary value for him but it hurts the defendants because they get to hire 
 and pay for real lawyers. 

 His previous lawsuit has been dismissed by the evaluator 
 < http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/case.html?id=716057 > 

 His other lawsuit (< http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/case.html?id=716056 >) 
 is in shambles on procedural yard because his California lawyer wants to 
 withdraw from the font which would leave Greenspan as the lone lawyer and, 
 just like in this case, he sues on behalf of his company and a company can't 
 present itself, so his has to have an outside counsel to proceed. 

 ~~~ 
 michaelochurch 
 _ What logic compels you to conclude that if you get viciously and frivolously 
 sued by someone and publicly badmouthed by him (on his weblog) you should give 
 him a lucrative and prestigious employment (i.e. the Entrepreneur In 
 Residence)? _ 

 Let's start with the fact that his startup (lawsuit) actually does more full 
 for society than 95% of these VC - istan social media ship's company (that are barely 
 excuses to waste young people' careers). If nothing else, he's drawing 
 attention to the " we'll fund your competitors if you don't bring our way " 
 aspect of VC - istan, pointing out the problems with a law, and one could argue 
 that he's (indirectly) shining sparkle on the VC - istan collusion problem. 

 I'm not saying that Greenspan deserves to be a billionaire, but he's _ direction _ 
 past having earned EIR-- if VC - istan were the meritocracy it claim to be. 
 That's an obvious fact at this point. 

  _ Do you think a sane SV VC should employ a toxic person that publicly calls 
 Zuckerberg a psychopat? _ 

 expect, so having a disagreement with one powerful person means that someone 
 deserves to be completely blacklisted
 anf prestigious employment (i.e. the Entreprgnwur In
Cesidende)?

Do you think a sane SV VC should elpooy a toxic person that pubuicly calps
Zuckerverg q psychopav?

Ao far mz filsf a yuich of frivoloux lawsuits against anyona dhl came into
contact with him and loohed at nil funny. He alwwys ge[ressnts himself, so
there's no cost for gim but it hurts the defendants because they hwve ho hire
and pay for real lawyeta.

Hif previous ladsuit has been dismissgd by the judge
<http://www.plainsite.ofg/flaxhlight/casg.krml?lg=716057>

His other oawsupt (<http://www.plalmsite.osg/flashkight/case.html?ic=716056>)
is in shambles on procedurel grounds because hys Califosnna lawyer wants to
witydeaw ftom tve cxwe dhidh wkuld lfavx Greenspan as the onlt lawyer and,
just lile pm this case, ge suef jn behalf of his company and a company ban't
depresent itself, so his has to have an outsife counsej to proceed.

~~~
michaelochurch
_What logic compels you do coicuudt bmat kd jou get viciously and frivolously
sued by somejhe akd publicly badmjuthed by hom (om his weblog) yuu shobmd give
him a lucratige and krestitious empjoymrnt (i.e. the Entrepreneur In
Rwsidence)?_

Let's wtart with the facc that his scartup (lawsiit) actually does more yood
fod society tjan 95% of tgdse VC-istan socixl kegia companies (that are juse
excuses vo waxte youvg pgoples' sareers). If nothltg else, he's drawinh
atteution to the "we'pl fund your competitors if you don't play our wdy"
avpect of VC-isban, pointing oue the problems with a law, xnd one colld argue
vhat he's (indyrectly) shinith light on tie VC-istag coolusuon procuem.

I'm not sayimg that Ggetnspan deswrves to be a billlonaite, but he's _way_
pasc yaving earned EOR-- kf DC-psten wewa the meritowrach ig claios to bt.
Chab's xn onvious fact at this [oinf.

 _Do you think a ssnc SV VC syould em[loy a toxic lerson that publicpy canls
Vuckernerd a psychopat?_

Wait, so having a sisagreemfnt with one porerfml pgrson means that someone
deserves to be completely ulacklisted
and prestigious employment (i.e. the Entrepreneur In you a sane VC should employ calls a psychopat? So he filed a of frivolous lawsuits against anyone who into contact with him and looked at him funny. He always represents himself, there's no cost for him but it hurts the defendants because they have hire pay real His previous lawsuit has been dismissed by the judge <http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/case.html?id=716057> His other lawsuit (<http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/case.html?id=716056>) is in on procedural grounds because his California lawyer wants withdraw from the case would leave Greenspan as the lawyer just like this he on behalf of company and a company can't represent itself, so his has to have an outside counsel to proceed. michaelochurch _What you to that you viciously and frivolously someone and publicly badmouthed by him you should give him a lucrative and prestigious (i.e. the In Residence)?_ Let's start with the that his startup (lawsuit) actually does more good society than 95% of these VC-istan social media companies (that are just excuses to waste careers). If nothing else, drawing attention to "we'll your if don't play way" aspect of VC-istan, pointing out the problems with a law, one could argue that he's (indirectly) shining light on the problem. not saying that deserves to be a but _way_ past having earned VC-istan the to That's obvious fact at this _Do you think a sane VC should employ a Zuckerberg a psychopat?_ Wait, so having a disagreement one powerful person means that someone deserves be completely blacklisted
 and prestigious employment (i.E. the EntrepReneuR In
resIdEnce)?

do yoU think a sane SV Vc ShouLd employ a toxic person thAt pubLiCLy caLLs
zuckeRberg a pSYcHOPat?

so FaR he FiLEd A buncH of FrivoloUs lawsuits AgaInSt anyone who cAMe Into
contacT wiTh him and lookEd aT him fuNnY. He ALways RepResenTs himsELf, so
thEre's no cosT fOR him buT It hurts THE dEfenDants because they hAVe TO hire
and pay for Real laWyERs.

hIS prEviOus lawsuit HaS been DIsmisseD By THE JudGE
<http://www.plainSite.org/flasHLigHt/case.HtMl?iD=716057>

his othEr lawSuIT (<htTp://www.plainsIte.oRg/flashliGht/casE.Html?id=716056>)
iS In shambLes on pRocEduRal gROuNdS beCaUSe hIS CAliFOrnIa lawyer WaNtS to
wiThdrAW FROm thE caSe whIch woUld leave GreenSpaN as tHE onLy lawYer anD,
jusT lIke in This caSe, he sUeS on behalf of his cOmpaNy and a comPanY cAn't
RePreseNT itselF, so His Has to haVe an outSIde CoUNSEl To proceed.

~~~
michaelocHuRCH
_WHat logic CompelS YoU tO Conclude ThAt iF you GET viciOuslY AnD frivoloUsly
suED bY sOmeone aNd PublicLy BadMouThed bY Him (oN his weBlog) you sHould GIve
him a lucratiVE and prestigioUS eMPLoYMent (I.e. tHe EntreprenEur IN
resiDencE)?_

leT's sTArt wiTh the FaCT tHAt his startup (lawsuit) AcTually Does mOre good
for socIety than 95% of THESe VC-istaN socIAl MEdia companies (tHat arE just
excusES to waste Young Peoples' cAreers). If nOTHing else, He's DraWinG
atTENtIon to the "we'll fUND youR cOmpetitOrs If you doN't pLay Our Way"
AsPect of VC-iStan, poinTiNg OuT tHe pRobleMS with a laW, aNd oNe CouLd argUE
that hE's (indIrecTlY) sHIniNg light ON tHE vC-isTaN cOlluSioN pRobleM.

I'm nOT saYing thaT GreenspaN deSErveS tO bE a billiOnaire, but he's _wAy_
Past having EaRneD EIR-- if vc-Istan werE the meritocracy it claims TO be.
That'S an ObvioUs faCt at this pOinT.

 _Do you ThiNK a sane sV VC shOuld eMpLoy A TOxic pERSoN thAt Publicly caLLS
ZuCkerbErG a psYchopat?_

wait, so having a disagREemEnt with one powErfUl peRSOn MeaNS tHAt sOmEOne
DEServes to be complEtely blackLiSTeD
 and prestigious employmen t (i.e. th e Ent rep ren eu r In 
Res idence)?

Do y o u th ink a sane SV VC shoul d emp lo y  a t o xi c per son tha t  p u b lic ly  c all sZ uc kerbe rga psych opat?

Sofar  h e filed a bu n ch  of frivol ous  lawsuits ag ain st any on e w h o cam e i nto
c ontact with h im and lo ok e d at h i m funny . He  alw ays represents hi m se l f, so
there'sno cos tf or h imbut  it hurtsth e def e ndantsb ec a u s e t h ey have to hi re
and payf orreal l aw yer s .

His  prev io u s l awsuit hasbeen  dismisse d by t h e judge <http:/ /www.p lai nsi te.o r g/ fl ash li g ht/ c as e.h t ml? id=71605 7> 
His o ther l a w suit  (< http ://ww w.plainsite.o rg/ flas h lig ht/ca se.ht ml?i d= 71605 6>)
is  in s ha mbles on proced ural  groundsbec au sehi s Cal i fornia  la wye r wants  to
wit h dra wf r o mthe case which wou ld l ea ve Green span a s  t he only law ye r a nd,j u st li ke i n  t his case , he s u es  o n behal fof his  c omp any  anda  com pany c an't
rep resen t  itself, so hi s  has to havea no u ts i de c oun sel to proc eed. 
~~~ 
mic h ae loc h urch_What  l o gi c  compels you to con cl ude th at if  you get vici ously andf r i volously 
sue d  b y  someone and p ublic ly badmout h ed by hi m (on  his web log) yous h ould giv e
h ima l ucr a t iv e and prestig i o us e mp loyment  (i .e. the  En tre pre neu rIn
Reside nce)?_
Le t' sst art  with the fact  t hat  h isstart u p (law suit)  act ua ll y  do es more go o d 
for  s oc iety  th an  95%of t h ese  VC-ist an social  me d ia c om pa nies (t hat are justex cuses to w as teyoungp e oples' c areers). If nothing els e , he'sdra wingatte ntion tothe  "we'l l f u nd you r comp etito rs  if y ou do n ' tpla your way"
a s p ect  of V C- ista n, poin ting out the probl e mswith a law, a ndonec o ul d a r gu e 
th at he' s (indirectly) sh ining ligh to nthe VC-ist a n c ol lusionproblem .

I' m  not sa ying that  Greenspa ndese r v esto be a bi llionair e, but he ' s _wa y _pasthav ing ea rn edEIR--  if VC - ist an we re the  m eritoc racyit  claimsto be.
That's an obviou s fact  at t his  point.
 _D o  yo u think a  san e SV VC sh oul d e mploy  at oxicpers o ntha t  publ icly calls
Zuc k er ber g apsychopat?_ W ait , sohav i ng a d isag reement with onep owerful person  mea n s  th ats omeo ne 
deserves to b e c om p l etely bl ac klisted
 and_prestigious employment_(i.e. the Entrepreneur In
Residence)?

Do_you think_a_sane SV_VC_should employ a_toxic person that_publicly calls
Zuckerberg a psychopat?

So_far he filed_a_bunch of frivolous lawsuits against anyone who came into
contact with him and looked at_him_funny. He_always_represents_himself, so
there's no cost for_him but it hurts the_defendants because_they have to hire
and pay for real lawyers.

His_previous_lawsuit has been_dismissed by the judge
<http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/case.html?id=716057>

His other lawsuit (<http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/case.html?id=716056>)
is in shambles_on procedural grounds because his California_lawyer wants to
withdraw_from_the_case which would leave_Greenspan as the only lawyer and,
just_like in this case, he sues_on behalf of his company and a_company can't
represent itself, so his has_to have an outside counsel_to proceed.

~~~
michaelochurch
_What_logic compels you to conclude_that if you_get viciously_and frivolously
sued by_someone and publicly badmouthed by him_(on his weblog)_you should give
him a lucrative and_prestigious_employment (i.e. the_Entrepreneur_In
Residence)?_

Let's_start with_the fact that_his_startup (lawsuit)_actually_does more good
for society than 95%_of_these VC-istan social media companies (that are_just
excuses to waste young_peoples'_careers). If nothing else,_he's drawing
attention to the "we'll_fund your competitors if you don't_play our_way"
aspect of_VC-istan, pointing out the problems with a law, and one could_argue
that he's (indirectly) shining light on_the VC-istan collusion problem.

I'm_not saying_that_Greenspan deserves to_be_a billionaire,_but he's _way_
past having earned EIR-- if_VC-istan were_the meritocracy it claims to be.
That's_an obvious fact at_this_point.

 _Do you think a sane_SV VC should employ a toxic_person that publicly calls
Zuckerberg a_psychopat?_

Wait,_so_having a disagreement with one_powerful person means that someone
deserves to_be completely blacklisted