Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ron Conway Drops A Nuclear Bomb On The Super Angels

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–218 of 218 posts

Re: Ron Conway Drops A Nuclear Bomb On The Super Angels

#211

Post by Psyonic »

techiferous wrote: post #186
dkarl wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "b…

> 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;…

If you don't want to expand on that, can you point us towards more information elsewhere? I'm interested in this other paradigm.

Re: Ron Conway Drops A Nuclear Bomb On The Super Angels

#212

Post by sliverstorm »

Sukotto wrote: post #164

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 in…

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

Re: Ron Conway Drops A Nuclear Bomb On The Super Angels

#213

Post by andreyf »

wwortiz wrote: post #36
gkoberger wrote: post #16

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.…

Well here is one instant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsV-lgnAjps 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 aft…

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.

Re: Ron Conway Drops A Nuclear Bomb On The Super Angels

#214

Post by Confusion »

swombat wrote: post #149
Confusion wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it is not an admission of guilt. 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 Mic…

  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.

Re: Ron Conway Drops A Nuclear Bomb On The Super Angels

#215

Post by ahoyhere »

Sukotto wrote: post #164

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 in…

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.

Re: Ron Conway Drops A Nuclear Bomb On The Super Angels

#216

Post by ahoyhere »

sliverstorm wrote: post #212
Sukotto wrote: post #164

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 in…

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

I'm personally convinced that it's both.
Post reply on HN