At the very least you are factually incorrect that the article "adds nothing of substance" to your earlier blog post. The things that Schreiber alleges -- being in Boston to handle a lawsuit from a former co-founder without telling your partners, petty lying about purchasing and losing an iPad, concealing the amount of time you'd known about the tax issues, etc. -- were not covered in that blog post and paint a very different picture of your leadership of Amicus than what you've claimed.
And honestly, I wish I'd known about this TNR piece when I read your earlier blog post on Hacker News. I would have seriously discounted your advice if I'd seen how sharply your version of events diverged from those of a respected journalist doing lots of research and making your emails publicly available[3]. I don't know why the parent comment was flagkilled -- Schreiber's allegations raise serious questions about your credibility to offer advice to founders, and as a reader I'd appreciate commenters pointing out the other side of the story.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Scheiber
[2] http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119350/amicus-app-how-tec...
[3] http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119351/seth-bannons-email...
You mean on HN? It wasn't flagkilled: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8283583, nor did moderators touch it. It did, oddly, set off the voting ring detector. It also got oddly little discussion, although maybe that was because https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8080442 was where all the comments went.
I edited my above comment to clarify that I meant the parent comment was flagkilled.