But the conversation has evolved to the point where these super angels are actually colluding (and I don’t use that word lightly) to solve a number of problems,

But the conversation has evolved to the point where these super angels are actually colluding (and I don’t use that word lightly) to solve a number of problems, say multiple sources who are part of the group and were at the dinner. Given Arrington's allegations, why would someone in the group or at the dinner admit to the collusion? These are smart guys talking to a prolific, ballsy blogger--what do they expect will happen? What's in it for them? At least two people attending were extremely uneasy about the meetings, and have said that they are only there to gather information, not participate. It also strikes me as odd how specific he is when mentioning figures. Why not simply say, "Several people who attended the meeting..."? By specifically saying that there were two, he will have everybody who was there guessing who those two are. Also, if there was just one person, it would make sense for him to specify that there were two to throw off the rest of the group, no?