> Dan Lyons suggests that my defending Path on this issue means, because we’re an investor, that we’re a paid apologist (and much worse). Seems to me that Lyon

> Dan Lyons suggests that my defending Path on this issue means, because we’re an investor, that we’re a paid apologist (and much worse). Seems to me that Lyons was suggesting that Arrington was a paid apologist on the basis of the less-than-full complement of scruples and moral fiber Arrington has exhibited in the past.