There's one thing I noticed about Arrington at Disrupt- sure, he's a dick, but he's only a dick to people who a) can take it and b) deserve it. I can't think of a single instance where he has called someone out, and it turned out later he was wrong.
For example, some of the panel at Disrupt were being rude (talking amongst themselves during a startup presentation), and he stopped everything and called them out on it. These weren't just random judges- they were some of Silicon Valley's most influential people. He never once took a shot at any of the startups presenting. He may have given people like Carol Bartz a hard time, but they can take it.
I may not necessarily want him as a friend, but I really respect Arrington. This email from Conway basically proves "yet again, Arrington knew what he was doing."
============================
Edits about the people posting below me:
- Leo Laporte: a) Leo Laporte can take it, and b) Arrington was merely asking for a disclosure. I don't think that proves me wrong.
- Last.fm: Linking to the official blog of a company being accused isn't proof. There's much more to the story that came after that (ie http://techcrunch.com/2009/05/22/deny-this-lastfm/; not to say linking to TC is any better)
- I'm sure Arrington has been wrong at some point.. I just said I couldn't think of anything.
This whole episode was quite an impressive feat by Arrington. As one of the many "not-super" angels in the world, it validated something that was only hearsay until Arrington confirmed it -- which has then given Conway a chance to chastise it appropriately.
You may want to consider trying to band together and brand yourselves in the vein of Hacker Angels to get more dealflow past AngelList. It'd be great if this kerfluffle shook up the angel "industry" to make it more efficient and more competitive.
(Disclosure: kn0thing is an angel in Blueleaf, the startup I work for.)
Oh, more dealflow is one thing I definitely don't want these days now that I'm @YCombinator :) I've halted considering any new DasKapitalCapital.com investments.
That said, I love the Hacker Angels group. They represent a lot of what's right with angel investing.
I find Ron Conway's follow up courageous (given the fact that he knew it would come out). I think it is very good in its content. It shows that business ethics is about much more than following the law of the land or of your selfish interests. It also shows that there are still some great investors on the block. Thanks Ron!
I must say I wonder what favors Arrington exchanges with the very participants of this sad angel bunch to get them to forward all these confidential emails though...
FWIW I've personally dealt with Arrington on a less than pleasant occasion, and despite things not going my way I have to say he acted with integrity and passion, and kept the interests of the entrepreneur in mind the whole time. He won my respect despite screwing me over (on this particular occasion, for reasons that were mostly out of his control).
Edit: Leo Laporte and the Palm Pre for those who have seen it
In response to your edit I was only posting because you said a) and b) not a) or b) and I don't think this falls into the category of b).
He wasn't asking for disclosure so much that he did not get a pre review unit so he was strongly biased against those who did since he went on even after disclosure was completed.
The tone of the Gillmor Gang was always more aggressive and Arrington wasn't being particularly aggressive and was trying to make a point about how things work. I get the feeling he wasn't comfortable with the Gillmor Gang on his network and was looking for a way out.
Leo Laporte takes quite a few shots at other people and can take it. It is often hard to listen to some of his "netcasts" because he does tend to be snarky about those flyover people.
Woah. Leo looks like he was having a really bad day or something. Why didn't he just say "I know, I know, it's a review unit, I'm sending it back in 7 days and going out to buy my own, because I like it so much"? However you respond to "did you pay for the device you're about to tell us about?", anything including "fuck you" was not an appropriate answer. It surprises me that people with such a low boiling point can maintain the "personal brand" Leo has.
Ron Conway to the super-angels: I'm in this game because I love seeing entrepreneurs build cool stuff. You guys aren't. Stop worrying about term sheets and valuations and worry about adding value beyond cash. I've wanted to say this for a long time, but have bit my lip in your presence. I no longer want to be involved with any of you. And Dave McClure, quit being a classless embarrassment to Silicon Valley.
That is a good summary. However, I'm surprised that so many other comments talk about Conway rocking, being a great individual etc.
When I read his email, my thought was that the email was a great image-building propaganda tool and that he wrote it with the knowledge that the email would be made public.
His email talks how great he is, how he loves entrepreneurs and how other investors are in it for self-serving factors like ego and money. Of course, I have no way of knowing whether that is true or not. However, I'm willing to bet that many unscrupulous investors could easily write a similar email.
Ron would not do that. First, he's not the sort of person who would write an email hoping it would be leaked. If he has something to say, he just says it. But also, if he'd written this to be leaked, it wouldn't sound like this; he wouldn't have said some of the things he did, and he would have showed it to his posse, who would have fixed the misspelling of "entrepreneur."
I suspect he is mortified this got out. It must have been leaked by one of the super-angels themselves. Which is a little surprising, considering the things it says about them. There must be at least one super-angel so eager for attention that he believes there's no such thing as bad publicity.
Were I interested in identifying the leak, I'd send an email with faked headers that looked like it went to everyone, but actually send each person a version that is subtly different--a misspelling of a word, or a variation in white space, or punctuation. Then, I'd wait to see which appeared on TC.
with the consistent misspelling of "entrepreneur", this just hit a new level of entertaining. i wonder if an angel in the group just funded the moonraker laser.
I would have similar doubts about Conway's authenticity here except that doesn't fit with what I've heard pretty much everywhere else about the kind of person he is to do deals with and work with.
Maybe he wouldn't have written that email if this story hadn't been aired. Maybe he would have. But the email fits with his past actions, so to me it doesn't matter.
My guess is that he knew the email would be aired, and he wrote it to entrepreneurs as much as to the super-angels. His brand is all about trust-with-entrepreneurs, and if he loses that his deal-flow gets severely cut down.
To solidify that trust, he publicly threw down the line in the sand and said, "I'm on the entrepreneur's side. Always. I'm even willing to give up friendships / partnerships with these other investors to prove that loyalty."
If Conway or any other 'Superangel' or whatever doesn't go public with some sort of response like this, everyone will just assume they were there, which will be bad for their image in itself.
That strikes me as a difficult theory to credit, based on my interactions with Conway, to say nothing of his reputation. He's the straightest of the straight shooters.
This guy is an upstanding individual and really cares about startups. I'm glad people like him exist. Maybe some day I'll be lucky enough to have him invest in one of my projects.
I really like how he called McClure out. I know McClure is a smart guy and allegedly a great investor, but he is quite classless and the f* this f* that attitude is embarrassing to what are supposed to be a group of intelligent, successful, and perhaps caring individuals.
Lots of shitting on Dave McClure from people who've never met him. If you had a friend who was a great guy but happened to have a ridiculous online writing voice, and terrible taste in fonts, you wouldn't hate on him for it. The few times I've dealt with him, he was incredibly generous and helpful beyond belief. Don't turn real people into hateful caricatures based on your dislike of the way they express themselves online.
I'm sorry, but the way you express yourself is always going to affect others perception of you.
I also wouldn't say I turned him into a hateful caricature. There's no hate in there, I just think his writing style is classless. And if anyone is turning him into a caricature, it's himself.
If I had a friend who would only scream at people in real life, I would think less of him, regardless of how helpful he was. I do, in fact, have a friend who expresses himself like a douche online. I a) call him out for it frequently and b) think that he is a bit douchey. Still a great guy, and one of my best friends, but I would definitely say the way I look at him is changed by his online persona.
He knows more about how these guys act behind closed doors than absolutely anyone. I think it's official now: these guys were being bad and they got an appropriate bitch slap.
Hopefully that's the end of it. I'm sure none of them are genuinely bad guys. There's probably just a side of some of them that's a bit greedy and stupid. Hopefully this will be the lesson they all need to keep that side suppressed permanently.
Why are you so sure their intentions are pure or that "none of them are genuinely bad guys"? Do you know the people that were there well? If you don't, you're not really qualified to say this. People put a lot of time into image and posturing and often it has little to do with what's really under the surface.
If they are in actually involved in illegal collusion, they should be charged and prosecuted. I don't think it's sufficient to say the damage to the reputations of those involved is sufficient punishment if accusations of conspiracy are correct.
Here's my take: generally, people and life situations are very complex and the reality is that people don't neatly fall into categories of "good guys" or "bad guys".
Zoroastrianism really emphasized individual responsibility and thinking of individuals as good or bad. This made its way into Judaism and then spread into Christianity and Islam. Since our heritage as a nation is Christian, we have picked up this paradigm of thinking in terms of "good guys" and "bad guys". It also features heavily in our storytelling (movies). It's so much a part of our way of looking at the world that we actually think it's real.
tl;dr: People are too complex to be labeled "good" or "bad".
You missed the context: these guys were being bad and they got an appropriate bitch slap. Hopefully that's the end of it. I'm sure none of them are genuinely bad guys.
In other words, the point of them being "genuinely bad guys" or not is whether the affair should be allowed to blow over after a few firm but loving reproaches. staunch and cookiecaper are both speaking in the same terms, on the assumption that only "bad guys" need to be punished harshly, because non-"bad guys" want to behave well and just need a mild wake-up call now and then.
Rejecting the concept of individual people with persistent qualities forces you to argue in different terms, but it doesn't necessarily change the result of the argument. So let's talk about punishment from the opposite orientation:
People exist in complex fields defined by their personal relationships and social institutions. People tend to engage in behavior that results in comfort, advancement, and social approval, they and tend to avoid behavior that results in deprivation, loss of position, and loss of social capital. Harmful behavior is controlled by ensuring that personal relationships and social institutions punish bad behavior instead of rewarding it.
In this case, that means society should find out what these people did, enforce any laws against it, and (in the case of people who know them and work with them) shame them with disapproval and show an aversion to dealing with them. Otherwise bad behavior will flourish and affect more people. We do not want to be responsible for tempting people to behave in ways that are injurious to others, because aggressive, selfish behavior harms those who engage in it as well as their victims. If we, as a society, do not inflict just punishment on those who harm others, then aggressive, selfish behavior will increase, and there will be more suffering for both victims and aggressors.
tl;dr: Rejecting the idea of "genuinely bad guys" leads to the conclusion that they should be punished regardless of whatever personal characteristics might be ascribed to them.
> Rejecting the idea of "genuinely bad guys" leads to the conclusion that they should be punished
The idea of individual punishment also was emphasized in Zoroastrianism and spread its way into the global human psyche. Punishment is a very natural tool for us but it's clumsy. I would elaborate more but it takes a lot of words to explain a different paradigm and uncover hidden assumptions.
I'm not saying you're wrong; I just want to note that thinking in terms of punishment is not the only way to think.
Perhaps the idea that punishment should always be individual, never collective, started with Zoroastrianism (I haven't a clue) but individual punishment predates it by a wee bit.
For example (got this all from Wikipedia; you can verify it there), the Code Of Hammurabi predates Zoroastrianism by hundreds of years. Wikipedia lists seventeen examples from the code; each example describes an individual punishment based on individual responsibility for an infraction. (Since I can't stop surfing Wikipedia now,) the Code of Ur-Nammu, "the oldest known tablet containing a law code surviving today," also prescribes individual punishments for individual infractions. It dates from the third millenium BCE, predating Zoroastrianism by over one thousand years.
Thanks, that's an important distinction. The punishment idea already existed; Zoroastrianism simply emphasized individual responsibility (and therefore punishment). Thanks for the correction.
>>People are too complex to be labeled "good" or "bad".
People are extremely complex, and overall, bad or good (in relation to almost everyone's ethical standards).
The sun is extremely complex... but it is fair to call it "hot".
The idea that no one is "good" or "bad" is ridiculous. People can change over time, they can have messed up motivations, or emotional issues, but in the end people make conscious decisions that either are or are not moral and ethical by society's standards.
"in relation to almost everyone's ethical standards"
And here is the problem. Comparing people to the dominant ethical standards is not a good measure of their goodness or badness, it's a measure of how conformant they are to others' ethics. (Enter Godwin's Law, stage right.)
I'm not suggesting that those involved be vilified or "burned at the stake" as the euphemism goes. I merely think that we lack data on the whole situation, and that we shouldn't assume that there are no "genuinely bad guys" in the bunch just from their public personas. Also, that statement is premature anyway because we don't even know who was there.
I don't think that we should vilify or exonerate yet. We should just sit on it and wait for reliable data to emerge. I was surprised that your post had so many upvotes because it jumps to an irrationally optimistic conclusion that none are "bad guys".
The correct conclusion based on the data we have is no conclusion, because nothing conclusive has been presented. It seems confirmed that a dinner was had and that many powerful angel investors were involved. That's about all that has been agreed upon so far. So why are you saying that none of these are "bad guys" when we don't know who was there or what they were doing?
You'd be surprised who's a bad guy and who isn't when it comes down to the wire. It's easy to be gracious when things are going well, and easy to appear gracious in a medium that you control.
And in any case, I merely suggested the terms of the law be enforced if it is found that the law was violated. This hardly amounts to a "burning at the stake".
What in the world could "genuinely bad guys" mean if it doesn't include rich people who do something wrong for money, knowing that the consequences will fall on people who are not rich?
I find it hard to tell if this is a heartfelt attempt to "tell it like it is", or masterful damage control to pull his buddy's ass out of the fire.
PG vouches for him (which counts for a lot) so maybe it's completely legit and heartfelt.
If so, it does indicate a certain lapse of judgment on the author's part. Why on Earth would he think something this inflammatory would stay secret? It must be obvious to everyone involved that they have serious operational-security issues. There's no way something like this would be kept private when the members of the group couldn't even keep the existence and location of their meeting a secret from a notoriously trigger-happy (and widely read) blogger.
If it isn't heartfelt, then it walks through the checklist of everything you should do for damage control when you or someone in your circle faces an accusation of collusion / conspiracy:
- Loudly and vehemently disagree with the "bad group"'s philosophy;
- Explain the presence of the buddy in "bad group" in terms of how he didn't want to be involved but was sucked in and unable to escape. (Don't wave this type away as "bad judgment" since it implies guilt);
- Completely disavow the "bad" group;
- Keep focus on how you only care about "good group";
- Repeatedly assert that you always look out for "good group" and you would never allow anything bad to happen to "good group"
(Incidentally, the spelling errors were a particularly nice touch.)
Notice how he admits that the group is guilty of bitching about deal structures with entrepreneurs, while drawing attention away from the greater crime of collusion. My thought is that this is an attempt to draw attention away from the real crime here by throwing up more distraction.
It DOES have many grammatical flaws and the writing style strongly reminds me of the unvetted typing of a classic older user who 'adopted' the net in his later years.
The profile that his letter draws to mind strongly suggests to me that it was either:
1) authentic and written by him and only him
2) Masterfully manipulative and two steps ahead of me
It's been my experience that the more often a person says "I'm honest" "I'm transparent" "I'm doing this for the good of xyz" - the more they're lying. Certainly, using words like "honestly" in a negotiation is a popular type of 'tell.'
You're right, the whole email did seem calculated to make himself look good. It sounds more crafted for its future audience (the whole web) than the mailing list.
Dropping a "nuclear bomb" would be something like, "I have a recording from the Bin 38 meeting that proves you were colluding. The FTC will start examining it at 9am sharp tomorrow morning."
Sure, it's unusual for someone to so strongly come out and call people out, especially people that he may want to invest alongside someday, but "nuclear bomb" is a serious stretch.
Right. He's used up his "nuclear bomb" title for the year. What happens when something truly scandalous happens? I suppose he could go up to hydrogen bomb..
Above that are Tsar Bomba, small asteroid, large asteroid, and antimatter bomb. If events get much more shocking, then we go up to disastrously-located black holes and self-replicating berserker swarms. After that, I guess all that's left is the ultimate menace of a superintelligent and profoundly alien AI that cares only about maximizing the number of paperclips in the universe.
What I'm saying here is that Michael Arrington has plenty of room left for hyperbole, even now.
Arrington has has obviously lit a match to a powderkeg with "So a blogger walks into a bar...". McClure's response came across (to me) as defensive, which at least confirms that there is a concern about the appearance of impropriety.
I would love to know who was at this meeting and who got this email from Conway.
There are some useful short-term consequences of this:
1. These super angels probably don't trust each other anymore ("who tipped off Arrington?"). This is a good thing;
2. Meetings like this are less likely to happen in the short term. If they do, they'll probably be somewhere private (the back of a restaurant is not private); and
3. It highlights the importance and value of reputation and integrity (of which Conway's cup overfloweth).
Further to (3) there is this quote from JP Morgan:
> Asked: "Is not commercial credit based primarily upon money or property?"
> "No sir," replied Morgan. "The first thing is character."
> "Before money or property?"
> "Before money or anything else. Money cannot buy it...Because a man I do not trust could not get money from me on all the bonds in Christendom."
If you're referring to rational people who have something to hide, those tend to lose their rationality once the shit hits the fan (like when Arrington posted "So A Blogger Walks into a Bar..").
McClure got pissed off because of an article that didn't even provide names, went out and verified the facts of the meeting, attacked PG on some wild assumptions to the effect of "what goes around comes around", and his post goes from "the agenda was drinks, good food, & shooting the shit" to "in addition to pricing & valuation, some of the more interesting things discussed were.." basically confirming Arrington.
I think he grasps the meaning of 'defensiveness' better than most others. More and more people have started misusing 'defensive' to mean 'a response to an (implicit) accusation in which the accusation is denied'. That's not what being defensive is. Being defensive is defending the act of which they are being accused. Not denying it.
Apart from that semantic mixup, I've never understood why 'being defensive' is a bad thing. Someone accuses someone, not necessarily me, of something, I either defend or deny it and that is then taken as an admission of guilt, because "I'm being defensive". There's really no way out; I'm guilty whatever I say. It's a good thing this cultural mishap hasn't yet propagated to the courts of law...
> Being defensive is defending the act of which they are being accused. Not denying it.
NO, being defensive means seeing a lion and either standing still and hope it will go away, running for your life or attacking it ... either way, you're defending yourself in the presence of danger.
It is very clearly used as such. 'Being defensive' is meant to be bad thing; it's never used in a neutral or positive way. That's why the analogy from nature fails: 'defending yourself from a lion', in whatever way, is a morally neutral act. 'Being defensive' is not intended to be morally neutral.
Being defensive is seen as a bad thing because you're only defensive when you perceive a serious enough threat. Occasionally, lies can be serious threats, but when it comes to scandals like this, the most serious threat is, in fact, when the scandal does in fact have a solid basis in reality.
So, the defensive reactions by both Dave and Ron indicates that there is probably substantial and threatening truth behind Michael Arrington's post.
So, the defensive reactions by both Dave and Ron indicates
that there is probably substantial and threatening truth
behind Michael Arrington's post.
False rumors, false accusations, slander, etc. can be pretty threatening things that need to be defended against, because they can ruin you. People do not seem to consider that option at all and the only evidence that is given is that the reaction is 'defensive'. I wouldn't like to be a defendant in their court. If you keep silent, you are guilty, because you are hoping it will blow over. If you deny the accusations, you're just doing what you were expected to do and the force of the accusation doesn't wane. When you defend yourself, you're being defensive, which is an admission of guilt, because it acknowledges there was a threat. A sad state of affairs, reminiscent of the witch hunts.
My respect for Arrington keeps going up, and I can't help but admire what Ron Conway has to say about this. The no-bs approach works for him. I'm glad he called out the writing, I guess McClure's money is still green, but I don't think I could take anyone that writes like that seriously.
You are going to criticize a guy based on a single private letter that he wrote? Maybe he was feeling anxious and frazzled and wrote this email quickly to help resolve his feelings. I know I certainly have, and I'm sure it was not the most elegant prose ever constructed.
It's crazy that even with Ron telling Dave to stop embarrassing the tech community with his unprofessional classless writing - he still did it! That in itself is truly classless
Yes, but Dave's accidental tweet to the whole world came after Ron's email, didn't it? That's what really makes Dave look like a webtard - Ron told Dave not to "cause silicon valley more embarrassment with your unprofessional classless writings", and then Dave sent out a tweet doing exactly that!
I seriously don't understand how people were defending his writing style. Anyone over ninteen would realize the use of multi-colored text, "drop a cap in yo ass" lines, and lack of capitalization looks like you're lazy and incompetent. I realize he's done fairly well in his investments, but does he not have an extra 2-3 minutes to capitalize and think out more coherent analogies?
does he not have an extra 2-3 minutes to capitalize and think out more coherent analogies?
The same way, I fail to realize how people don't understand that he writes in that style not because he lacks a few extra minutes but because that is a style and persona he's built over time.
How is it that someone as sharp as McClure and his posse claim him to be cannot realize that no matter how well-crafted the the persona may be, if it personifies douchebag then maybe you need to dial it back a bit.
It may personify douchebag to you and 82,482 other irrelevant strangers on the internet. More important, though, is what it personifies to the entrepreneurs looking to raise money. What you see as douche, many see as no-bs straightalking angel investor(whether accurate or not is irrelavant).
At the end of the day, his blog is a sales pitch to entrepreneurs. And from all that I can see, he has done pretty well. ie. he's scored many deals where the entrepreneurs see him as the no-bs guy; I'm not aware of any where an entrepreneur blatantly turned him down due to his writing style. Most that claim they would never raise money from him have never raised money and never will.
Conclusion: it's his style, it works for him and his goals, so he continues.
I read his style as "wide-eyed guy staring at you and monologuing intensely, with a somewhat unhinged demeanor and odd vocal inflections." The erratic capitalization contributes a lot to that.
There is a difference between "being real" and "being an idiot." I don't want to have an idiot involved in my company, so acting like one on your blog seems dumb.
You make it sound like pop is the only alternative to rap. I happen to like some of both (along with a lot of other styles of music), but am not interested in the rants of people who are acting like jerks from either musical style.
Dave McClure is free to write with the tone of a jerk all he wants. I don't know anything about him other than the post in question, but regardless of whether that's just his "style", I certainly wouldn't want to do business of any serious kind with him if it could possibly be avoided.
...It makes him look childish, impatient, immature, and less credible. If you're a professional, act like one. You wouldn't turn an essay in looking like that in junior high or high school, so why is it acceptable for him?
There's many things that make a man. His dress, his words, his actions, and these are all suppose to be a reflection of his character and integrity. Be careful which one you pick to judge a man.
I'm not defending Dave's actions at this meeting, merely his writing style. I'm glad the Valley has room for the likes of Dave's writing style. The day the Valley values professionalism over actual value give is the day I leave, since I can go to Wall Street for that. Suits and the Whole Nine Yards.
The second time I'll invoke Tara:
"The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act." - Tara Ploughman
I'd be afraid of the answer if I asked an actual junior high school teacher which side of "average" that writing style would actually land him on in terms of a school essay.
Let's be honest here. If you had as much money as Mcclure, would you waste as much time trying to please people by bending over backwards with perfect grammar, lack of slang, and an apologetic tone?
Everyone starts writing to please other people through resumes, cover letters, thank-you cards, and apologies. But once you have enough money like Mcclure, you can say "Fuck you" when you want to and not worry about losing your job.
I guess it's because I'm the child of two English teachers, but writing in the style that McClure used takes effort for me. Writing in passable complete sentences is the norm.
For me, the worst part of his writing is his use of foul language. I do not want to have my mind littered with such filth. I have nearly two decades of business experience, and I have never come across anyone who comes remotely close to approximating the grossly unprofessional manner in which Dave communicates. How could professional colleagues and entrepreneurs put up with that? His style is a reflection of substance -- substance which is unprofessional, irresponsible, and uncivil. From the perspective of fellow investors, Dave's writing comes across as very sophomoric and utterly unprofessional. From the perspective of entrepreneurs, entrepreneurs merit more than any money, contacts, and accumulated wisdom that an investor can offer -- they also deserve a responsible and professional role model. Dave's writing is reflective of one whom I would hardly find to be a good role model. It is just simply improper and disrespectful of others for anyone to communicate in the manner that Dave has, and it is highly irresponsible for an adult to project himself or herself in such a manner especially when serving in an advisory or mentoring capacity.
Thanks, Ron, for calling a spade a spade. I watched an interview with Ron about a year ago, and I found him to be very forthright, insightful, sincere, and professional - and clearly one who wants to try to help entrepreneurs out as much as he can. He seems to be a good role model for entrepreneurs. Thanks too to Mike Arrington for breaking the story and to Mike and his team for their follow up reports.
It is just simply improper and disrespectful of others for anyone to communicate in the manner that Dave has
I think that is the essence of his persona. The whole justification for it-- I'm smart and I have money so I don't have to show anyone respect. Deal with it or leave.
It reminds me of my concept of ancient Rome for some reason. A place where power ruled, rather than the concept of egalitarianism.
Yes, I would. It doesn't take that much more effort. Your argument is that he's too busy for punctuation to be worth his time? What about people who are more wealthy than him who manage to do so? What would you think if Warren Buffett wrote like this?
He's acting like the kids in junior high who thought they were being rebellious by shopping at Hot Topic and dressing punk. He's just replaced one style for another. He's not text messaging his rant, he published it online. If he's so rich and too busy, then pay an assistant to edit it. Everything you do is a representation of yourself.
Maybe you would, that's why you're complaining about it.
But my whole point is that there's more people like him that don't feel like writing perfectly. As you just admitted, it takes extra effort to write for your audience instead of writing for yourself. And why would he bother to hire an assistant to edit it? That also takes effort.
Warren Buffet obviously has the choice to behave in the same manner. He also has the choice to be reckless like Larry Ellison and fly jet fighters, or be like the Koch brother's and spend millions on libertarian think-tanks to anger a large democratic populace. Or conversely, why does Buffet choose to anger countless libertarians by saying he and other billionaires should pay a higher tax rate than his secretary? If he was a truly wise businessman, he would refrain from political statements like that.
My point is that wealth makes people more confident in revealing their idiosyncrasies. Whether or not you like their true personality is another story. Amusingly and relatedly I've lost over 20 karma points for telling what people don't want to hear even though I do not support Dave McClure's behavior.
Because it's stupid. Just being rich doesn't make you immune to criticism. Sure, he can do what he likes, but other people are free to voice how dumb it is. I don't see what money has to do with it.
I seriously don't understand how people were defending his writing style.
I explained that his writing style is defensible because he doesn't care about the general audience. And if there were more people as rich as him, you'd see more people not bending over backwards with perfect grammar and an apologetic tone.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean he isn't justified in sounding off if it makes him feel better.
I don't know McClure or any of the other alleged colluding Lucifers, but I will say that, assuming McClure is a person of influence in the tech/dev community, I don't want him influencing others to write that way. Why? Simply because I don't want to read any further blog posts that are written that way.
So it's more selfishness than self-righteousness that leads me to criticize his particular style.
No one other Ron could have wrote this piece and I respect him all the more for coming out and being clear about his position (as if you didn't know it already).
I can predict two things;
1) The younger angels react and further split themselves from the Ron way of doing business. or
2) You will hear no more about this public debacle. It's clearly bad for business and any smart investor will shut up now.
Two reactions: (1) Ron Conway is a man of great integrity.
(2) It's astonishing and fascinating that the world's most prolific angel investor apparently doesn't know how to spell "entrepreneur". But he sure has helped a lot of them, and that's what really matters.
"... he world's most prolific angel investor apparently doesn't know how to spell "entrepreneur" ..."
There is another (sneaky) explanation.
Ron simply sent out many of these emails to different people with another word with incorrect spelling. This allows you to identify exactly who leaks the message. This is an old "intelligence" trick used to identify the source of information leaks.
Perhaps not but you could say that about a lot of things. People will make up their own minds, and most will do so based on their preexisting biases. Those who try to keep an open mind should be aware that this story is a rumour based on hearsay, not a verifiable fact.
McClure dug himself into a hole with his first response. He didn't think two moves ahead. In poker parlance what McClure did was to bet the turn on a semi-bluff not anticipating an all-in shove from his opponent on the river.
McClure's post - through both its style and its content, left an opening for Conway to come out with this email. Dave is stuck now, and his only response from here is to come clean in some way and clear the air.
McClure has made all sorts of mistakes, first the blog post, and then the accidental tweet. He is not handling this very well and I feel for him because he is the only person from the dinner who is speaking out. The other people in attendance are suspiciously quiet (and giving away that they were there by being quiet) and leaving it to Dave to do the talking (and not doing a very good job for himself or for the rest of them).
Which kinda sucks, since re-reading his post, it seems like he was invited there. To me, it seems probable that he wasn't the ring leader(s), but merely the one that's talking the loudest. Doesn't excuse the guy, but he's getting the spotlight shone on him while the others sneak off into the night unnoticed.
He also could have been the one to tip Arrington to the meeting in the first place. Then, after alleging that it was one of the others who had tipped Arrington, he inspires mistrust among the colluding angels. This is all speculation, obviously, and a little too ''evil' mastermind' to be based on reality, I think.
The only thing that makes me seriously wonder if this is a fake is the repeated misspelling of the word entrepreneurs: "entrepenuers"
Edit: I just realized I read the posts backwards. I suppose it's not fake if that's actually what Dave McClure was referencing in his deleted tweet. Still. Perhaps these "super angel" could do with some spelling and grammar lessons. (Yes, I could probably use some too.)
As an outsider to Silicon Valley, it really seems like it's full of drama and ego wars. Seeing grown men and women argue like children really makes me happy I resisted the urge to move out there.
Seems to me like you are jumping to a pretty big conclusion about nkohari's comment. Or am I misunderstanding what you were trying to say?
I didn't see any "feeling superior" at all in what nkohari said. You don't have to feel superior to someone who is behaving childishly just because you don't want to be around them. And I don't think he was targeting "everyone there" either. He just said Silicon Valley was "full of drama and ego wars". Now, perhaps "full of" is overly strong. I'm sure there are plenty of level-headed people in the mix too. But I don't doubt from what I've read and seen that there is plenty of "drama and ego wars" to go around.
It didn't seem so at first, but I think there is something insightful about Alex's and your characterisations of these cities (disclosure: I currently live in Cambridge, MA).
There really is an overwhelming aura of "you don't get taken seriously unless you're in the Valley" which gets a bit grating when you have legitimate reasons for living elsewhere.
The OP simply means that the grass isn't always greener.
Exactly. I think there's a lot of smart people in the Valley, but every time I hear a story like this, it sounds more and more like a clubhouse for middle schoolers.
I just moved here and I think it's awesome. There are so many tech meetups, startup founders, hackathons, and jobs (if your startup doesn't work out) that it's worth it. I still only interact with the drama by reading it on the internet and I get a lot of benefits from living here.
It almost reminds me of what happened with derivatives, securitization and HFT on wall street. The game became all about bamboozling the regulators and investors with complicated financial games instead of creating real wealth.
There's this ugly thing in American business where money is made on making things overly complicated. Where instead of trying to solve economic problems people are just trying to win at chess.
Indeed. Actually, the more I think about it, the more I like it. I have to believe it's intentional -- perhaps a conscious progression of the fluid language. Or maybe he just has a thing against the French.
Either way, if anyone gets the privilege of defining a new spelling for the word, Ron is a good candidate.
I think the community should embrace the new spelling, in appreciation. :)
I made a comment to the same effect on this same story, but I've realized that it's actually phonetic given the (mis)pronunciation often heard 'round the Valley. Most people I know say "ahn-treh-preh-noo-er" instead of the more Frenchified "ahn-treh-preh-ner". It's easy to see how one might misspell the former (as RC apparently did).
As entrepreneurs, we need both Conway and the Super Angels. It's time for everyone to get over these unfortunate meetings and forgive the participants. Enough is enough.
Did they do something wrong? Hell yes. But it's been exposed, examined, and discussed. Publicly stoning a group of angels represents the worst kind of mob behavior and reflects poorly on entrepreneurs as an investment class. Let's not forget that wealthy individuals have many different options for investing their money that historically have higher rates of return (i.e. make more money) than investments in startup companies. Many angels invest in startups because it's more fun than profitable. Let's not change that dynamic in spite of ourselves.
At the end of the day, we want angel investing to be the biggest game possible. It's a surplus of angel money that has put entrepreneurs in the driver's seat and made term sheets extremely favorable to founders. Fewer angels in the mix and the scenario can change quickly.
It's time to prove that we're better than a small group of angels who engaged in such unfortunate behavior. It's time to forgive and move on.
I don't think there's anything suspect about Ron Conway's misspelling of 'entrepreneur'. He probably just banged out the email without doing a spell-check. Let's remember it was a private email. Had he intended to have it published he probably would have taken more care. I can't speak for Ron, of course, but I will say that I frequently write the word "entrepreneur" (i.e. in blog posts, emails, etc). I'm not sure why - maybe it's the way I touch-type - but I often miss the second 'r'. I typically don't even notice until I do a spell-check. All in all, I think it was just an innocent mistake.
> Please keep this confidential even though I know that will be hard since two of you let your egos take over and show Arrington how important you are by telling him you were headed to a “secret” angel gathering.
Conway didn't say that he's not interested in making lots of money. Sounded to me like he was just pointing out that making money is not his primary motivation for investing. Now, I don't know him at all, so I can't vouch for whether he's being honest or not. However, I'd like to point out that there are plenty of free-market-loving capitalists in this country (present company included) who do the things they do with "making lots of money" quite a ways down on their priority lists. In fact, many of us would be perfectly content with just loving what we do, making enough to pay the bills, support our families, and have a little bit left over to do some fun and meaningful things with.
Agreed. I was asked by my boss to "examine my priorities" when I came in 5 after 8 from driving by son to his new school (we were moving, I wanted him to be in same school for the whole year).
Next morning I delivered my prioritized list to him - work was #12. Try it, you will be surprised.
Don't get me wrong, money is part of the equation for me, but certainly I won't sacrifice health, family, security etc for a little bit more of it (or for a particular job etc).
I worked there for years after. I learned later he was stressed that day - three separate people walked into his office at different times, saying they were going to quit if something didn't change (I wasn't one of them). I guess he changed, I didn't hear any more about it.
Conway helps entrepreneurs he is not invested in as much as he helps those he is invested in. You may not know the guy, but those who do will tell you that is a very genuine sentiment.
And Ron Conway appears to be a capitalist with slightly more long-term thinking. By being actually concerned with the people he's dealing with, he's likely to help create better outcomes for them, and, in the end, make more money than if his goal was simply to squeeze as much as possible in the short term.
By the way, can this meeting be connected to Angel List (http://angel.co/) in any way?
As far as I understand, Angel List is an effort to create a centralized curated marketplace for angel investing. Seems very similar to AngelGate. Even if these are unrelated, I wonder, whether Angel List can be viewed as something against competition.
On the other hand, Angel List simplifies angel fundrising a lot and therefore is beneficial for entrepreneurs.
As others said, I don't think I've ever see entrepreneur spelled entrepenuer quite that many times before. If the nuclear bomb was mispelling entrepreneur, it has been dropped.
Though, I appreciate Ron's willingness to speak out against the collusion of these investors to wreak havoc on their competition.
Man, sometimes I find it hard to express how much I love watching awkward dudes with enough money to think they're important get into catfights across blogs.
Ron Conway wasn't at the dinner in question. If you read all the information out there, it all comes down to Mike got snubbed, made wild allegations in anger, the first person to stand up (Dave) got ran over by the collective truck, TechCrunch posts suggestive information and the party goes on. The ball is still in Mike's court to produce something of substance.
At first, I admired Tech Crunch for having the guts to post something like it but looking it over there's no substance to it. It's just yellow journalism for the digital age. Complete rubbish that feeds into the collective psyche.
It is very difficult to be what Ron Conway is. Respect. He is not preaching but living an example & telling others that it can be done. The problem is that this mail was meant only for super angels to possibly introspect and be influenced. Not to be beaten around in public forums embarrassing the investors. Sometimes confessions in private work better as a fix. It is hard in public.
If Arrington had any sense he would have kept quiet and not divert attention to a debacle through TC at the cost of start-up community.
I don't agree that Arrington should have kept quiet. When you shine a light in a dark room you are able to see what people do when they think nobody is looking.
In Arrington's case, he gave the world a front-row seat in a meeting where the participants thought they were in private -- this is a very good thing in my opinion. With few exceptions, transparency is a win for society and business because it keeps people honest.
Arrington's report puts the "secret-meeting participants" on notice that they can't get away with this kind of thing, and it also alerts entrepreneurs to watch out for it. Both very good things.
I agree with this assessment. Sure it's linkbaity and Arrington has an ulterior motive of stirring up drama for page views, but at the end of the day it passes the smell test. Not necessarily that collusion occurred, but just that things may have been heading in that direction... it's probably a pretty gray area when you think about all the way that angel investments are structured and the diverse opinions among angles.
All the drama will probably blow over in a few days, and in the end both the super angels and entrepreneurs will be better off for this ethics-check having occurred.
It's going to feel A LOT more surreal in the coming days I suspect. A lot of people are going to go into serious a$$-covering mode to distance themselves from these people as quickly as possible. It's not just a matter of reputation, it's a matter of landing on the preferred side of the law.
Ron's email is great. I do wonder why he didn't write it before this whole thing broke. I'm guessing it would have been even tougher.
For example, some of the panel at Disrupt were being rude (talking amongst themselves during a startup presentation), and he stopped everything and called them out on it. These weren't just random judges- they were some of Silicon Valley's most influential people. He never once took a shot at any of the startups presenting. He may have given people like Carol Bartz a hard time, but they can take it.
I may not necessarily want him as a friend, but I really respect Arrington. This email from Conway basically proves "yet again, Arrington knew what he was doing."
============================
Edits about the people posting below me:
- Leo Laporte: a) Leo Laporte can take it, and b) Arrington was merely asking for a disclosure. I don't think that proves me wrong.
- Last.fm: Linking to the official blog of a company being accused isn't proof. There's much more to the story that came after that (ie http://techcrunch.com/2009/05/22/deny-this-lastfm/; not to say linking to TC is any better)
- I'm sure Arrington has been wrong at some point.. I just said I couldn't think of anything.