5 ms·

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 o

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. These weren't just random judges- they were some of Silicon Valley's most influential people. He never once took a shot at any of the startups presenting. He may have given people like Carol Bartz a hard time, but they can take it. I may not necessarily want him as a friend, but I really respect Arrington. This email from Conway basically proves "yet again, Arrington knew what he was doing." ============================ Edits about the people posting below me: - Leo Laporte: a) Leo Laporte can take it, and b) Arrington was merely asking for a disclosure. I don't think that proves me wrong. - Last.fm: Linking to the official blog of a company being accused isn't proof. There's much more to the story that came after that (ie http://techcrunch.com/2009/05/22/deny-this-lastfm/ http://techcrunch.com/2009/05/22/deny-this-lastfm/; not to say linking to TC is any better) - I'm sure Arrington has been wrong at some point.. I just said I couldn't think of anything.

wwortiz 16y ago
Well here is one instant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsV-lgnAjps 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 after disclosure was completed.
- protomyth 16y ago
  The tone of the Gillmor Gang was always more aggressive and Arrington wasn't being particularly aggressive and was trying to make a point about how things work. I get the feeling he wasn't comfortable with the Gillmor Gang on his network and was looking for a way out. Leo Laporte takes quite a few shots at other people and can take it. It is often hard to listen to some of his "netcasts" because he does tend to be snarky about those flyover people. // disclosure: I do contribute the $2/mo to TWIT
- andreyf 16y ago
  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.
tworats 16y ago
FWIW I've personally dealt with Arrington on a less than pleasant occasion, and despite things not going my way I have to say he acted with integrity and passion, and kept the interests of the entrepreneur in mind the whole time. He won my respect despite screwing me over (on this particular occasion, for reasons that were mostly out of his control).
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
ianbishop 16y ago
http://blog.last.fm/2009/02/23/techcrunch-are-full-of-shit http://blog.last.fm/2009/02/23/techcrunch-are-full-of-shit Perfect example.
- ktsmith 16y ago
  To be fair that was posted by Shonfeld and not Arrington as can be seen in the by line. http://techcrunch.com/2009/02/20/did-lastfm-just-hand-over-user-listening-data-to-the-riaa/ http://techcrunch.com/2009/02/20/did-lastfm-just-hand-over-u... I suppose you could hold him responsible for not preventing it from being published, but this wasn't directly one of his posts.
  - ianbishop 16y ago
    Sorry, I guess I was thinking of this reply: http://techcrunch.com/2009/05/22/deny-this-lastfm/ http://techcrunch.com/2009/05/22/deny-this-lastfm/ but that would have been to the post I linked to above. Back: http://www.last.fm/forum/21717/_/535934/5 http://www.last.fm/forum/21717/_/535934/5 and forth: http://techcrunch.com/2009/05/23/another-blanket-denial-by-lastfm/ http://techcrunch.com/2009/05/23/another-blanket-denial-by-l... Since Arrington wrote two of the three articles, I guess I just figured he wrote the original too.
kn0thing 16y ago
This whole episode was quite an impressive feat by Arrington. As one of the many "not-super" angels in the world, it validated something that was only hearsay until Arrington confirmed it -- which has then given Conway a chance to chastise it appropriately. Granted, I still wish he'd revise the inaccuracies in this article (http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/29/guy-who-copied-digg-slams-digg-for-copying-twitter/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/29/guy-who-copied-digg-slams-d...) but I'll take the fact that none of you remembered it as a good sign :) All in all, bravo, Michael.
- sachinag 16y ago
  You may want to consider trying to band together and brand yourselves in the vein of Hacker Angels to get more dealflow past AngelList. It'd be great if this kerfluffle shook up the angel "industry" to make it more efficient and more competitive. (Disclosure: kn0thing is an angel in Blueleaf, the startup I work for.)
  - kn0thing 16y ago
    Oh, more dealflow is one thing I definitely don't want these days now that I'm @YCombinator :) I've halted considering any new DasKapitalCapital.com investments. That said, I love the Hacker Angels group. They represent a lot of what's right with angel investing.
- danielnicollet 16y ago
  I find Ron Conway's follow up courageous (given the fact that he knew it would come out). I think it is very good in its content. It shows that business ethics is about much more than following the law of the land or of your selfish interests. It also shows that there are still some great investors on the block. Thanks Ron! I must say I wonder what favors Arrington exchanges with the very participants of this sad angel bunch to get them to forward all these confidential emails though...
sharjeel 16y ago
I'm not sure if a) Twitter could take it b) Twitter deserved it http://techcrunch.com/2009/07/14/in-our-inbox-hundreds-of-confidential-twitter-documents/ http://techcrunch.com/2009/07/14/in-our-inbox-hundreds-of-co...
- rythie 16y ago
  Someone else would have published it if they hadn't.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    That's the lamest excuse of all to do something like that.
krosaen 16y ago
I found this post from a year ago convincing that arrington jumps the gun sometimes, examples include "google apps free is done" to the last.fm debacle http://www.somebits.com/weblog/culture/blogs/techcrunch-wrong-again.html http://www.somebits.com/weblog/culture/blogs/techcrunch-wron...

wwortiz 16y ago

Well here is one instant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsV-lgnAjps 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 after disclosure was completed.

protomyth 16y ago
The tone of the Gillmor Gang was always more aggressive and Arrington wasn't being particularly aggressive and was trying to make a point about how things work. I get the feeling he wasn't comfortable with the Gillmor Gang on his network and was looking for a way out. Leo Laporte takes quite a few shots at other people and can take it. It is often hard to listen to some of his "netcasts" because he does tend to be snarky about those flyover people. // disclosure: I do contribute the $2/mo to TWIT
andreyf 16y ago
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.

tworats 16y ago

FWIW I've personally dealt with Arrington on a less than pleasant occasion, and despite things not going my way I have to say he acted with integrity and passion, and kept the interests of the entrepreneur in mind the whole time. He won my respect despite screwing me over (on this particular occasion, for reasons that were mostly out of his control).

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

ianbishop 16y ago

http://blog.last.fm/2009/02/23/techcrunch-are-full-of-shit http://blog.last.fm/2009/02/23/techcrunch-are-full-of-shit Perfect example.

ktsmith 16y ago
To be fair that was posted by Shonfeld and not Arrington as can be seen in the by line. http://techcrunch.com/2009/02/20/did-lastfm-just-hand-over-user-listening-data-to-the-riaa/ http://techcrunch.com/2009/02/20/did-lastfm-just-hand-over-u... I suppose you could hold him responsible for not preventing it from being published, but this wasn't directly one of his posts.
- ianbishop 16y ago
  Sorry, I guess I was thinking of this reply: http://techcrunch.com/2009/05/22/deny-this-lastfm/ http://techcrunch.com/2009/05/22/deny-this-lastfm/ but that would have been to the post I linked to above. Back: http://www.last.fm/forum/21717/_/535934/5 http://www.last.fm/forum/21717/_/535934/5 and forth: http://techcrunch.com/2009/05/23/another-blanket-denial-by-lastfm/ http://techcrunch.com/2009/05/23/another-blanket-denial-by-l... Since Arrington wrote two of the three articles, I guess I just figured he wrote the original too.

kn0thing 16y ago

This whole episode was quite an impressive feat by Arrington. As one of the many "not-super" angels in the world, it validated something that was only hearsay until Arrington confirmed it -- which has then given Conway a chance to chastise it appropriately. Granted, I still wish he'd revise the inaccuracies in this article (http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/29/guy-who-copied-digg-slams-digg-for-copying-twitter/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/29/guy-who-copied-digg-slams-d...) but I'll take the fact that none of you remembered it as a good sign :) All in all, bravo, Michael.

sachinag 16y ago
You may want to consider trying to band together and brand yourselves in the vein of Hacker Angels to get more dealflow past AngelList. It'd be great if this kerfluffle shook up the angel "industry" to make it more efficient and more competitive. (Disclosure: kn0thing is an angel in Blueleaf, the startup I work for.)
- kn0thing 16y ago
  Oh, more dealflow is one thing I definitely don't want these days now that I'm @YCombinator :) I've halted considering any new DasKapitalCapital.com investments. That said, I love the Hacker Angels group. They represent a lot of what's right with angel investing.
danielnicollet 16y ago
I find Ron Conway's follow up courageous (given the fact that he knew it would come out). I think it is very good in its content. It shows that business ethics is about much more than following the law of the land or of your selfish interests. It also shows that there are still some great investors on the block. Thanks Ron! I must say I wonder what favors Arrington exchanges with the very participants of this sad angel bunch to get them to forward all these confidential emails though...

sharjeel 16y ago

I'm not sure if a) Twitter could take it b) Twitter deserved it http://techcrunch.com/2009/07/14/in-our-inbox-hundreds-of-confidential-twitter-documents/ http://techcrunch.com/2009/07/14/in-our-inbox-hundreds-of-co...

rythie 16y ago
Someone else would have published it if they hadn't.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  That's the lamest excuse of all to do something like that.

krosaen 16y ago

I found this post from a year ago convincing that arrington jumps the gun sometimes, examples include "google apps free is done" to the last.fm debacle http://www.somebits.com/weblog/culture/blogs/techcrunch-wrong-again.html http://www.somebits.com/weblog/culture/blogs/techcrunch-wron...