This implies a mutual exclusivity that isn't realistic.
The GP is asserting that real estate is a significant additional revenue stream for tech VCs. You're asserting that real estate returns aren't important because they're dwarfed by the tech returns.
You can both be correct. Being good at tech investing doesn't exclude other investments from consideration or scrutiny, nor diminish their returns.
The parent is intentionally targeting Andreessen's reputation by insinuating several negative things that must inherently go along with the top level comment and the parent's comment.
As such, I'm further claiming this: to assault someone's character in that manner while providing absolutely zero supporting evidence, is disgusting. That is, show me the proof that Andreessen is making huge sums of money in real estate as implied; show me the proof he's entitled to any of the land wealth through marriage. He's being stoned as guilty by association as it stands, with zero evidence to the contrary having been supplied.
If a large amount of supporting evidence can't be supplied, to match the seriousness of the character attack, well how can such a thing be allowed to stand or go unchallenged in a civilized forum?
Why are you so rigorously defending this billionaire? It's not disgusting to discuss his business activities, or even to speculate about them. How is that disgusting? Do you even know what that word means?
I'm rigorously defending a person whose character is being seriously inpugned without a shred of supporting evidence.
I don't care if he's a billionaire. I don't care if he's a venture capitalist. I don't care who he is. I would defend you just the same, under the same circumstances.
No, his character is not being seriously impugned. This isn't a national broadcast, with some guy getting up on the podium and proudly declaring these things. It's just a random comment on a dinky message board that will fall below the fold by the end of the day. It's just a discussion board, people are discussing!
Relax with your charged language, you're really twisting the meaning of these words. Because you're so vehement about your defense, I am tempted to think you are being paid to defend Marc or you yourself are Marc.
The GP is asserting that real estate is a significant additional revenue stream for tech VCs. You're asserting that real estate returns aren't important because they're dwarfed by the tech returns.
You can both be correct. Being good at tech investing doesn't exclude other investments from consideration or scrutiny, nor diminish their returns.