So I saw this is on here. I'm going to skip reading the comments because I know from experience that some of you are idiots and I'll end up swearing at you. I'll just save time. If you disagree with me, you need to either re-read the post or study chess.

Every time, that's all it ever comes down to. Every one of you who ever disagrees with me. You either don't understand how to use what I'm saying, or you don't understand what I'm saying itself in the first place. Sorry to skip it, but it's boring as hell.

Anyway, here's the one thing I wanted to add: PLENTY OF MOTHERFUCKING FISH. In 2000 the millionaires were in porn and the crazy fuckers who do shit that doesn't work were in startups. Some of you remember this. Others of you will have to just trust that we old-timers remember what happened and are not in fact hallucinating or making things up.

In 2009, it's not about porn. Today if you want to be a millionaire, you still don't get in a car and drive down Sandhell Road. But you don't hire a bunch of emo girls from Hawaii to take their clothes off, either. You study strategy constantly, you spend less than four hours working per week, and you put cash in the bank by the truckload.

Boom. You're done.

I haven't made it work for myself yet, but I had Warcraft characters who were living it. It's a great economics sandbox. Everybody thought my characters were twinks because they had crazy gold at low levels. No twinking, just a system. And of course Plenty Of Fish and Tim Ferriss have made it happen in reality in at least two cases. I think the millionaires are paying more attention to that than to VC.

I even see blog posts by monkey motherfuckers who say they believe that the four-hour work week works, but they want to spend more time than that working, because they're passionate about what they do. That's the stupidest goddamn thing anyone could say. The whole point of the four hour work week is it only takes four hours. Take four hours a week out of your busy schedule to do something that actually works, put the money in the bank, and get on with your day. That day, and that busy schedule, can include anything you want it to, including working your ass off on a startup.

OK, come to think of it, if you disagreed with me because of this reason - if you're that particular idiot - then you don't need to study strategy or re-read my post. You need to learn the fundamentals of logic. Discover the difference between necessary connections and incidental connections.

Come to think of it, I encounter that one all the time too, so if you're that particular idiot, sorry for missing your case in the above condescending blanket dismissal. Here's a special condescending blanket dismissal of your very own: go study logic, you idiot.

And fallentimes, it was hard to skip your post because it was at the top of the page. You would have made it a lot easier to respond to if you had numbered your reasons. However, your reasons mostly aren't worth responding to. They don't represent a cogent response to my specific argument; you're mostly just sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalala I'm not listening." Your response is a filibuster.

You do have a few specific responses, however, so I'll answer them.

"You understand that your odds of having an enjoyable job paying 200k are roughly the same as owning a profitable small business."

I'm fairly certain that's factually inaccurate, but I can't prove it, and I'm not going to stick around for your answer, so I'll let it go. What I can nail you on is that this is a comparison on uneven criteria: for 200K to win, you have to enjoy it; for a small business to win, it has to turn a profit. Technically a prostitute has a profitable small business, so in this uneven comparison, a prostitute pulls ahead of anyone making 200K, even if they do enjoy it, since you say their chances are equal. You need to set up even comparisons to be fair. I think we can throw out this part of your filibuster, or at least require you to come back with an even comparison.

"You know IPOs or acquisitions aren't required to make a good living.."

and

"You avoid blanket statements like this: All the millionaires were in porn in 2000 and realize that not every "startup rule" or any rule applies. Businesses can be very different from each other."

I think it's obvious I'm only talking about VC-funded startups here. You appear to be suggesting that the way your startup can succeed is by being a different type of startup than the type of startup I'm talking about. That's not refuting my argument. That's merely changing the subject. I apologize for not making it clear that we were only discussing VC-funded startups. However, since this was an answer to a specific person, and a continuation of a specific conversation, let me tell you, as it happens, that's what the conversation was about.

The blanket statement thing is a legitimate dis. You've got me there. But rephrase it: the majority of millionaires were in porn. The core of my argument remains unchallenged. There were people doing a simple thing that worked. If your goal is to be a millionaire, it makes a lot more sense to do something that many millionaires do, which often works, than to do something that few millionaires do, which often fails.

That's why I made the analogy with acting. If you're going to work very hard and the odds are against you, you need to have something which fuels that, and if the only thing that fuels it is a desire for money, that won't be enough to take you to the finish line. Actors come and go in Los Angeles all the time because they think it's going to be easy. I don't get close enough to startups to say this with the confidence of fact, but my intuition is that this is very true of startup founders as well. You need to believe in the technology, or the way you'll change the world, or the corporate culture even. If you set out to become a millionaire using a strategy that very infrequently makes anyone a millionaire, you're going to give up the minute your common sense kicks in.

"You don't care about material possessions."

Again, you're changing the subject. This is a response to a guy who was interested in VC because he wanted to become a millionaire. Obviously, if you're putting forward that somebody who cares about something more than the money might have a better chance, well yeah, that's my point.

Sorry everybody else if there was some devastating, incisive refutation somewhere else on this page. I just don't have the patience, the even-handed temper, or the time.