111–120 of 258 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did he actually call anyone out? I thought this was post was extremely light on substance, actually.
He said "it included just about every major angel investor in Silicon Valley" - which people can make easy assumptions about who it is.
Who else?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He didn't name a single name. If he really believed this was so certain, he could have. Unless he's trying to make them do something, the only reason to keep names out of it is because he thinks this might be libel.
He doesn't need to expose himself to lawsuits by naming names. The names are pretty obvious to anyone in the field.
The comment I was replying to said, "his claims are laid out clearly without any weasel words. Either this is happening or it isn't." I disagree with that — Arrington is not laying it all out here as a black-and-white truth. He's consciously omitting facts in a way that happens to shield him from repercussions if this is false. As a traditional dead-tree newspaper guy, I'm very familiar with the ways reporters fudge their claims to avoid being responsible if it turns out to be crap. That's what this sounds like to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't take anything he says seriously. [Edit: If it wasn't clear, I meant Arrington, not Jesse]
Strange how any post that could be construed as being negative about Arrington gets down-modded by about 5 points, regular as clockwork. That being said, I think he's on the money with this one. This can only be good for YC overall. The suspicion that YC alternatives are all colluding against your startup is likely to make YC seem more attractive still, to the class of startup that would be wavering between YC and a…
"This group does not have a monopoly position in early stage deals. So getting together to discuss how they as individuals/small firms can better compete against much larger VCs and incubators is not price fixing or collusion."
It continues on to expand nicely on the point.
This thread officially needs a 'grellas bat-signal.
There's only half the story here because Arrington isn't naming names. It was a meeting of a group of people in a semi-public place, I don't see why he hasn't named who was there: "So, I went into the restaurant to find Dave, Ron, Jeff, Mike, Josh, Chris, ..." (I'm just naming, um, random first names here folks for the purpose of illustration!) He's clearly running a power play around the identities...
Because Dave, Ron, Jeff, Mike, Josh and Chris would have a defamation suit filed by end-of-day. Clearly MA reached out to the attendees.. I wonder what the other 8 or 9 had to say. That's the other half of the story.
If he says "they were talking about pricing deals and how to club together to avoid convertable notes", and they were, then there is nothing to sue over even if he has named the people there.
I don't actually get your comment. If we DON'T believe this group were talking about what Arrington is claiming then there is a bigger issue here regardless of whether people were named or not.
Well, at least one investor seems to have accidentally included himself in the mess (from TC's comments) http://twitter.com/speechu/status/25083299594
Earlier quoted context omitted.
er, because he wants to maintain relationships with his friends who were around the table?
One of the major nono's of journalism is becoming too close to your sources.
Another one would be "don't out your sources". Which he would have done if he had of named names.