You call me a scold and accuse me of scapegoating. You claim that "no actions of any commenters here lead to Aaron's death" and imply that Aaron should have been able to survive the onslaught of financial ruin and the prospect of years in prison along with having his compatriots on Hacker News tell him to fuck off. Clearly, you have no compassion for Aaron's plight. But I do. You live in the same world with me and we are all in this together whether you like it or not.
You need to atone for your actions regarding Aaron Swartz sir. When I first arrived at Hacker News I happened upon a thread where Aaron was asking for help from his compatriots, his fellow hackers. What he got was a sharp stick in the eye. The top voted comment was by a fellow who had been an active and helpful participant in this forum wherein he called Aaron out for not covering his own expenses for his defense. We now know that Aaron had already spent his fortune defending himself from a prosecutor out of control, Stephen Heymann, and was literally broke. This is apparently standard procedure for the Justice Department: threaten defendants with financial ruin and many years in jail to get a plea. As a result they boast a rate of 90% pleading guilty in federal cases. Thus effectively removing one of the most cherished protections of our civil liberties: trial by a jury of your peers. You sir, shut down every thread in that post in which someone even suggested that Aaron might be in trouble. The fellow who posted the top comment on that thread decided to abstain from taking part this discussion forum following Aaron's suicide. You, however, did not. You carried on commenting and defending the very behavior of the Justice Department which, along with your actions, lead to Aaron's death.
I've looked through your comments on this post and did not find anything that looked like an explanation or refutation of Lewis' claims that HFT were front running. Maybe I missed it or you were talking about another post. Why don't you create a blog post? That way you can point people to it and you won't have keep repeating yourself.
What I am saying is that you are accusing Schneier of setting up a straw man when in fact you and he have a difference of opinion. This is not a straw man. He left nothing out of his assertion. However you did. Care to respond to what I actually said?
Not really. It is usually used as a deceptive argument by one person. This is what you implied by leaving out all the people who supported his assertion.