My point was that you were misrepresenting what Reid Hoffman said. Is this an answer to my point? I guess your 4th and 5th paragraphs finally get there, but I d

My point was that you were misrepresenting what Reid Hoffman said. Is this an answer to my point? I guess your 4th and 5th paragraphs finally get there, but I don't read Reid's statement as saying what you think it does. Why don't you directly discuss the issues instead of trying to complain about your reading of Reid Hoffman's words supposedly framing the problem incorrectly?