I don't understand. I am unabashedly a fan of PG's writings. That makes me a PG fan, I suppose. There is a pretty wide gap, though, between being a PG fan and writing a blog post entitled "My Love, Hate, Love Again, Affair with Paul Graham". You disagree?
I don't disagree that there is a difference in the behavior between you and the author.
This behavior is not different in quality, though, just in quantity. I think that when you call yourself a "fan" and spend your time "wondering about the intersection between PG's fans and Stephenson's fans", you are expressing the same kind of devotion shown by the author.
So yes, there is a gap between you and the author. But it is a relative one. And I happen to think it is funny to see people judging someone else's behavior even when they show the same behavior. It's no different than pill-happy moms worried about their kids using drugs, claiming there is a huge difference between prescription drugs and whatever-kids-take-these-days.
Oh come on. I used the word "fan" once, to make a silly point about crossovers between cultural totem 1 (startup culture/ this place / PG etc) and totem 2 (neal stephenson). I've never said it before, I don't "spend my time" brooding on it, it was just a throwaway line.
I think it's a qualitative difference, but I guess I can't prove it. However, I didn't want to come across as judgemental so I apologise for that.
Sigh, I never know what to do now. Do I go and correct my original comment, and thus rewrite history, and make you look silly, correcting something that isn't wrong? Or maybe correct it and leave an "update:" notice, which looks presumptive - as if anyone could give a shit about my edits. Or I could just leave it alone, wrong as it is, and take my lumps - I should have been right the first time.
I choose the last option. I wonder how others think about such things.
For a reader, I think the last option makes sense. This is essentially a dialog. When somebody corrects you when you speak you can say "Yes, I take it back" but you can't go back and actually edit the original.
Correcting typos, refining your point - that's what "edit" is for. But going back and changing things so you were right smacks of rewriting history and, to me, is against the unwritten rules.
