[groups]

As a casual browser this is the first I've heard of this. I don't know the accuracy of his claims.

I'm curious about his sources and their reasons for not coming forth. That he doesn't cite them by name leads to me to think they choose to be anonymous. I'm not accusing them of something.

I dislike the title. I need more information to decide for myself whether Paul Graham owes Michael O. Church an apology. I think Paul Graham has a hand, albeit limited, in deciding whether he owes Church an apology.

[michaelochurch]

I put the word probably in for a reason. I don't know, for sure, what is going on. It does seem, however, that there are variables determining comment placement other than age and karma.

One commenter on my blog suggested the problem may be an abuse of the "flag" option (which is only supposed to be used on spammers).

[groups]

If he rigged the system the way you say, I'll be angry on your behalf. With that said, I'll nitpick:

Paul Graham can respond to your post however he wants. He _could_ simply say, "I don't care."

You _want_ an apology because you _think_ you've been wronged. A blog post entitled, "I want an apology from Paul Graham" sounds whiny--I get it. Still, from where I'm sitting the title, even with the "probably" proviso, sounds like a power-grab that denies Paul Graham's ability to give whatever response he wants to you. Also it looks linkbaity to me[1].

[1] I dislike linkbaity titles. I don't deny their effectiveness; I clicked the link!

disclaimer: I teach public speaking professionally, so these kinds of less-than-explicitly-conscious word choices stick out to me.

Edited to emphasize that I agree with the spirit of his post, and that I'm nitpicking because I enjoy picking nits.