6 ms·

Poll: What does the HN community believe about AngelGate?

28 points by bl4k 16y ago

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
grovulent 16y ago
I personally can't believe that Arrington is getting hailed for this by some people. Maybe he's absolutely right in his accusation. But we've seen nothing but hearsay, delivered out of a context involving Arrington's social rejection by people he keeps referring to as friends. It's hard not to wonder whether or not it's just a tantrum thrown by someone blocked from the 'NO-ARRINGTONS' secret society. (Which is not to say that I'm claiming he made EVERYTHING up. But how much did it play into his decision to report such serious allegations with little actual evidence? That's what I'm asking.) In any case - that's not journalism. That's not someone who spent a long time doing investigative research, gathering evidence, on-the-record testimony... it's bitchy gossip - and that's it. It's times like this that I feel that we really have lost something important with the rise of blogger journalism. Whatever the truth, it all looks extremely childish and unprofessional from all sides.
- bl4k 16y ago
  He is getting praise about it because most reporters would have preserved the connections they have with these people and not said a word. Arrington said up front that he was not invited to this dinner, he showed up expecting a quick chat or a rejection and knew that he was stirring trouble by showing up. He was tipped off that something was up because they all remained quiet, and chased up afterwards to find out that something fishy had indeed gone on (he confirmed with two people, one of those being the person who tipped him off to the meeting). As entrepreneurs, do we not want people like Arrington fishing out stories like this? Can't we appreciate that the reason he went public is to let the public be aware that something might be happening. I can see how people might be arguing that what the angels are doing is not wrong, but arguing that coming out with the story in the first place is out of line is to argue that journalists should just sit in the office and re-hash press releases, never digging into anything. Besides, the post from McClure today confirmed everything Arrington wrote yesterday (it was that post that completely tipped my own opinion). Dave essentially said 'yes this is all what happen, but we aren't colluding because it is a free country'. Doesn't what Dave posted counter-argue everything you just wrote? And that is coming straight from somebody who was there, not somebody who read about it online and then formed an opinion.
  - grovulent 16y ago
    Your claim: "but arguing that coming out with the story in the first place is out of line is to argue that journalists should just sit in the office and re-hash press releases, never digging into anything." ...is about as fallacious as it gets. I totally support your sentiment that journalists should be out there taking down the bastards of the world. And we suffer from such a dearth of this that I am hardly surprised that so many people want to believe that this is what is happening here. But how can you possibly assert that just because I'm saying that Arrington shouldn't have broke the story in the manner that he did - that it follows that I'm arguing that journalists should just process press releases? That's just a ridiculous implication. If Arrington had a genuine tip as to some bad goings on - then I certainly don't think that he should have just buried his head in the sand and ignore it. He should have INVESTIGATED it further before mouthing off. Even if he had some balls in making his post - you're confusing his balls with good journalism. Good journalism is to go further than just gossip, it's to go further than just to mouth off... It's possible I've got this wrong. Maybe Arrington here has got the integrity of a Berstein and Woodwoard duo sourcing information from a DeepThroat type personage. I just don't see any evidence of this. If anyone does - I'd be keen to see it.
    - bl4k 16y ago
      "He should have INVESTIGATED it further" You mean something like speaking to two people who were at the meeting and confirming it with them prior to publishing? Good idea..
      - grovulent 16y ago
        And these are competing VCs yeah? Because they would have no interest in making their competitors look bad? Absolutely it required further investigation than two barside chats... certainly before one starts throwing the muck which is pretty hard to wash off - innocent or not. Imagine it hypothetically - you meet with a few of your competitors to discuss some issues and a couple of them immediately turn to a report and lie and say that you're being evil. The reporter goes ahead and publishes these claims without even trying to independently check them, and without even asking you your side first (and Arrington gave no indication in his article that he did either of these things). Now, as per the hypothetical... how would you feel about it? Now I'm not saying these folks were lying - but the point is, how do we know?
fleitz 16y ago
Do super angels have super powers? Or could it just be that a bunch of guys in the same industry wanted to meet together. That people in a given industry meet to further the goals of that industry is hardly surprising. Who doesn't want to buy into a company at a lower valuation?
eogas 16y ago
You should add an "I don't really care" option.
- bl4k 16y ago
  done :)
kevin_morrill 16y ago
Who cares! Collusion should be legal. It's based on freedom of association, freedom of speech and private property. The only cartels/monopolies we should be are the ones governments create--since they're really the only ones immune from competition. Let's talk about phasing out the FCC, not a bunch of angel investors meeting.
- cjg 16y ago
  The problem with your implied argument (that competitors that aren't part of the collusion will make the collusion irrelevant) is that there are often significant barriers to entry in many markets that favour encumbents.
grandalf 16y ago
I don't really care. A strong startup has plenty of market power, especially in today's world.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
sfgary1 16y ago
I find it difficult to believe that a bunch of smart investors would sit in a public restaurant and discuss how to restrain each other from making costly investments. It would have been much easier to do it someone's home and not be noticed..there's just too much at stake.
wccrawford 16y ago
Missing option: I think that Angels were -always- out to further their own interests, and existence of collusion doesn't change that. Seriously, so long as Angels do what Angels do, does it really matter how?
- lzw 16y ago
  Plus, if you think about it, everybody is colluding all the time. All the founders who come help yc companies out are colluding with them to beat the competition, and yc is a big old festival of colluding. Colluding isn't really a crime. Saying "here's a method to get a better deal or reduce costs" happens all the time, and there's nothing wrong with it.
freerobby 16y ago
I believe that 10 super angels went to a bar, and Mike Arrington wasn't wanted there.
levirosol 16y ago
Are these guys important, respected people? Of course. Do they primarily invest in companies within Silicon Valley? Yep. Is the country, and the world much bigger than the ego's of these guys? Absolutely. My point is, why should I care about a closed door meeting that happened 2000 miles away from me. As a startup founder I find myself hesitant to comment on articles / topics like these mostly due to the fact that you never know who you might work with in the future. But I'll make the exception here. This seems more like a Days of Our Lives episode.
regularfry 16y ago
I believe that's a damn stupid name.
borismus 16y ago
I like how you can vote for more than one! This makes #3 somewhat redundant.
smoyer 16y ago
There are plenty of other angels out there ... if you don't trust the one you're dealing with, find another.
slowpoison 16y ago
My grandfather used to say - never make friends with a cop. I should add bloggers to the list.

28 points by bl4k 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

I personally can't believe that Arrington is getting hailed for this by some people. Maybe he's absolutely right in his accusation. But we've seen nothing but hearsay, delivered out of a context involving Arrington's social rejection by people he keeps referring to as friends. It's hard not to wonder whether or not it's just a tantrum thrown by someone blocked from the 'NO-ARRINGTONS' secret society. (Which is not to say that I'm claiming he made EVERYTHING up. But how much did it play into his decision to report such serious allegations with little actual evidence? That's what I'm asking.) In any case - that's not journalism. That's not someone who spent a long time doing investigative research, gathering evidence, on-the-record testimony... it's bitchy gossip - and that's it. It's times like this that I feel that we really have lost something important with the rise of blogger journalism. Whatever the truth, it all looks extremely childish and unprofessional from all sides.

bl4k 16y ago
He is getting praise about it because most reporters would have preserved the connections they have with these people and not said a word. Arrington said up front that he was not invited to this dinner, he showed up expecting a quick chat or a rejection and knew that he was stirring trouble by showing up. He was tipped off that something was up because they all remained quiet, and chased up afterwards to find out that something fishy had indeed gone on (he confirmed with two people, one of those being the person who tipped him off to the meeting). As entrepreneurs, do we not want people like Arrington fishing out stories like this? Can't we appreciate that the reason he went public is to let the public be aware that something might be happening. I can see how people might be arguing that what the angels are doing is not wrong, but arguing that coming out with the story in the first place is out of line is to argue that journalists should just sit in the office and re-hash press releases, never digging into anything. Besides, the post from McClure today confirmed everything Arrington wrote yesterday (it was that post that completely tipped my own opinion). Dave essentially said 'yes this is all what happen, but we aren't colluding because it is a free country'. Doesn't what Dave posted counter-argue everything you just wrote? And that is coming straight from somebody who was there, not somebody who read about it online and then formed an opinion.
- grovulent 16y ago
  Your claim: "but arguing that coming out with the story in the first place is out of line is to argue that journalists should just sit in the office and re-hash press releases, never digging into anything." ...is about as fallacious as it gets. I totally support your sentiment that journalists should be out there taking down the bastards of the world. And we suffer from such a dearth of this that I am hardly surprised that so many people want to believe that this is what is happening here. But how can you possibly assert that just because I'm saying that Arrington shouldn't have broke the story in the manner that he did - that it follows that I'm arguing that journalists should just process press releases? That's just a ridiculous implication. If Arrington had a genuine tip as to some bad goings on - then I certainly don't think that he should have just buried his head in the sand and ignore it. He should have INVESTIGATED it further before mouthing off. Even if he had some balls in making his post - you're confusing his balls with good journalism. Good journalism is to go further than just gossip, it's to go further than just to mouth off... It's possible I've got this wrong. Maybe Arrington here has got the integrity of a Berstein and Woodwoard duo sourcing information from a DeepThroat type personage. I just don't see any evidence of this. If anyone does - I'd be keen to see it.
  - bl4k 16y ago
    "He should have INVESTIGATED it further" You mean something like speaking to two people who were at the meeting and confirming it with them prior to publishing? Good idea..
    - grovulent 16y ago
      And these are competing VCs yeah? Because they would have no interest in making their competitors look bad? Absolutely it required further investigation than two barside chats... certainly before one starts throwing the muck which is pretty hard to wash off - innocent or not. Imagine it hypothetically - you meet with a few of your competitors to discuss some issues and a couple of them immediately turn to a report and lie and say that you're being evil. The reporter goes ahead and publishes these claims without even trying to independently check them, and without even asking you your side first (and Arrington gave no indication in his article that he did either of these things). Now, as per the hypothetical... how would you feel about it? Now I'm not saying these folks were lying - but the point is, how do we know?

fleitz 16y ago

Do super angels have super powers? Or could it just be that a bunch of guys in the same industry wanted to meet together. That people in a given industry meet to further the goals of that industry is hardly surprising. Who doesn't want to buy into a company at a lower valuation?

eogas 16y ago

You should add an "I don't really care" option.

bl4k 16y ago
done :)

kevin_morrill 16y ago

Who cares! Collusion should be legal. It's based on freedom of association, freedom of speech and private property. The only cartels/monopolies we should be are the ones governments create--since they're really the only ones immune from competition. Let's talk about phasing out the FCC, not a bunch of angel investors meeting.

cjg 16y ago
The problem with your implied argument (that competitors that aren't part of the collusion will make the collusion irrelevant) is that there are often significant barriers to entry in many markets that favour encumbents.

grandalf 16y ago

I don't really care. A strong startup has plenty of market power, especially in today's world.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

sfgary1 16y ago

I find it difficult to believe that a bunch of smart investors would sit in a public restaurant and discuss how to restrain each other from making costly investments. It would have been much easier to do it someone's home and not be noticed..there's just too much at stake.

wccrawford 16y ago

Missing option: I think that Angels were -always- out to further their own interests, and existence of collusion doesn't change that. Seriously, so long as Angels do what Angels do, does it really matter how?

lzw 16y ago
Plus, if you think about it, everybody is colluding all the time. All the founders who come help yc companies out are colluding with them to beat the competition, and yc is a big old festival of colluding. Colluding isn't really a crime. Saying "here's a method to get a better deal or reduce costs" happens all the time, and there's nothing wrong with it.

freerobby 16y ago

I believe that 10 super angels went to a bar, and Mike Arrington wasn't wanted there.

levirosol 16y ago

Are these guys important, respected people? Of course. Do they primarily invest in companies within Silicon Valley? Yep. Is the country, and the world much bigger than the ego's of these guys? Absolutely. My point is, why should I care about a closed door meeting that happened 2000 miles away from me. As a startup founder I find myself hesitant to comment on articles / topics like these mostly due to the fact that you never know who you might work with in the future. But I'll make the exception here. This seems more like a Days of Our Lives episode.

regularfry 16y ago

I believe that's a damn stupid name.

borismus 16y ago

I like how you can vote for more than one! This makes #3 somewhat redundant.

smoyer 16y ago

There are plenty of other angels out there ... if you don't trust the one you're dealing with, find another.

slowpoison 16y ago

My grandfather used to say - never make friends with a cop. I should add bloggers to the list.