4 ms·
Arrington has has obviously lit a match to a powderkeg with "So a blogger walks into a bar...". McClure's response came across (to me) as defensive, which at le
by cletus 16y ago
Arrington has has obviously lit a match to a powderkeg with "So a blogger walks into a bar...". McClure's response came across (to me) as defensive, which at least confirms that there is a concern about the appearance of impropriety.
I would love to know who was at this meeting and who got this email from Conway.
There are some useful short-term consequences of this:
1. These super angels probably don't trust each other anymore ("who tipped off Arrington?"). This is a good thing;
2. Meetings like this are less likely to happen in the short term. If they do, they'll probably be somewhere private (the back of a restaurant is not private); and
3. It highlights the importance and value of reputation and integrity (of which Conway's cup overfloweth).
Further to (3) there is this quote from JP Morgan:
> Asked: "Is not commercial credit based primarily upon money or property?"
> "No sir," replied Morgan. "The first thing is character."
> "Before money or property?"
> "Before money or anything else. Money cannot buy it...Because a man I do not trust could not get money from me on all the bonds in Christendom."
- j_baker 16y agoMcClure's response wasn't defensive. Defensive would have been keeping quiet and not admitting to have been there in the first place.
- spoondan 16y agoCalling TechCrunch's reporting a "bullshit superangel conspiracy theory" is, if nothing else, a prime example of defensiveness.
- j_baker 16y agoNo, that's disagreement. People who have something to hide usually don't draw attention to themselves.
- techiferous 16y agoI think your idea of defensiveness is different than most people's.
- Confusion 16y agoI think he grasps the meaning of 'defensiveness' better than most others. More and more people have started misusing 'defensive' to mean 'a response to an (implicit) accusation in which the accusation is denied'. That's not what being defensive is. Being defensive is defending the act of which they are being accused. Not denying it. Apart from that semantic mixup, I've never understood why 'being defensive' is a bad thing. Someone accuses someone, not necessarily me, of something, I either defend or deny it and that is then taken as an admission of guilt, because "I'm being defensive". There's really no way out; I'm guilty whatever I say. It's a good thing this cultural mishap hasn't yet propagated to the courts of law...
- bad_user 16y ago> Being defensive is defending the act of which they are being accused. Not denying it. NO, being defensive means seeing a lion and either standing still and hope it will go away, running for your life or attacking it ... either way, you're defending yourself in the presence of danger. Of course it is not an admission of guilt.
- Confusion 16y agoOf course it is not an admission of guilt. It is very clearly used as such. 'Being defensive' is meant to be bad thing; it's never used in a neutral or positive way. That's why the analogy from nature fails: 'defending yourself from a lion', in whatever way, is a morally neutral act. 'Being defensive' is not intended to be morally neutral.
- swombat 16y agoBeing defensive is seen as a bad thing because you're only defensive when you perceive a serious enough threat. Occasionally, lies can be serious threats, but when it comes to scandals like this, the most serious threat is, in fact, when the scandal does in fact have a solid basis in reality. So, the defensive reactions by both Dave and Ron indicates that there is probably substantial and threatening truth behind Michael Arrington's post.
- mfukar 16y agoIf you're referring to rational people who have something to hide, those tend to lose their rationality once the shit hits the fan (like when Arrington posted "So A Blogger Walks into a Bar.."). McClure got pissed off because of an article that didn't even provide names, went out and verified the facts of the meeting, attacked PG on some wild assumptions to the effect of "what goes around comes around", and his post goes from "the agenda was drinks, good food, & shooting the shit" to "in addition to pricing & valuation, some of the more interesting things discussed were.." basically confirming Arrington. In the most childish way possible.