
Ron Conway Drops A Nuclear Bomb On The Super Angels - ssclafani
http://techcrunch.com/2010/09/23/ron-conway-angel-email/
======
gkoberger
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/>; 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.

~~~
kn0thing
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-d...](http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/29/guy-who-copied-digg-slams-digg-
for-copying-twitter/)) but I'll take the fact that none of you remembered it
as a good sign :)

All in all, bravo, Michael.

~~~
sachinag
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
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.

------
adammichaelc
My paraphrased short version:

Ron Conway to the super-angels: _I'm in this game because I love seeing
entrepreneurs build cool stuff. You guys aren't. Stop worrying about term
sheets and valuations and worry about adding value beyond cash. I've wanted to
say this for a long time, but have bit my lip in your presence. I no longer
want to be involved with any of you. And Dave McClure, quit being a classless
embarrassment to Silicon Valley._

~~~
credo
That is a good summary. However, I'm surprised that so many other comments
talk about Conway rocking, being a great individual etc.

When I read his email, my thought was that the email was a great image-
building propaganda tool and that he wrote it with the knowledge that the
email would be made public.

His email talks how great he is, how he loves entrepreneurs and how other
investors are in it for self-serving factors like ego and money. Of course, I
have no way of knowing whether that is true or not. However, I'm willing to
bet that many unscrupulous investors could easily write a similar email.

~~~
pg
Ron would not do that. First, he's not the sort of person who would write an
email hoping it would be leaked. If he has something to say, he just says it.
But also, if he'd written this to be leaked, it wouldn't sound like this; he
wouldn't have said some of the things he did, and he would have showed it to
his posse, who would have fixed the misspelling of "entrepreneur."

I suspect he is mortified this got out. It must have been leaked by one of the
super-angels themselves. Which is a little surprising, considering the things
it says about them. There must be at least one super-angel so eager for
attention that he believes there's no such thing as bad publicity.

~~~
tomjen3
Either that, or one of the super angles are staying inside exactly so that he
can leak this and work against the conspiracy.

~~~
ericb
Were I interested in identifying the leak, I'd send an email with faked
headers that looked like it went to everyone, but actually send each person a
version that is subtly different--a misspelling of a word, or a variation in
white space, or punctuation. Then, I'd wait to see which appeared on TC.

~~~
noodle
with the consistent misspelling of "entrepreneur", this just hit a new level
of entertaining. i wonder if an angel in the group just funded the moonraker
laser.

------
bherms
This guy is an upstanding individual and really cares about startups. I'm glad
people like him exist. Maybe some day I'll be lucky enough to have him invest
in one of my projects.

I really like how he called McClure out. I know McClure is a smart guy and
allegedly a great investor, but he is quite classless and the f* this f* that
attitude is embarrassing to what are supposed to be a group of intelligent,
successful, and perhaps caring individuals.

~~~
kalvin
Lots of shitting on Dave McClure from people who've never met him. If you had
a friend who was a great guy but happened to have a ridiculous online writing
voice, and terrible taste in fonts, you wouldn't hate on him for it. The few
times I've dealt with him, he was incredibly generous and helpful beyond
belief. Don't turn real people into hateful caricatures based on your dislike
of the way they express themselves online.

~~~
bherms
I'm sorry, but the way you express yourself is always going to affect others
perception of you.

I also wouldn't say I turned him into a hateful caricature. There's no hate in
there, I just think his writing style is classless. And if anyone is turning
him into a caricature, it's himself.

If I had a friend who would only scream at people in real life, I would think
less of him, regardless of how helpful he was. I do, in fact, have a friend
who expresses himself like a douche online. I a) call him out for it
frequently and b) think that he is a bit douchey. Still a great guy, and one
of my best friends, but I would definitely say the way I look at him is
changed by his online persona.

------
staunch
He knows more about how these guys act behind closed doors than _absolutely_
anyone. I think it's official now: these guys were being bad and they got an
appropriate bitch slap.

Hopefully that's the end of it. I'm sure none of them are genuinely bad guys.
There's probably just a side of _some of_ them that's a bit greedy and stupid.
Hopefully this will be the lesson they all need to keep that side suppressed
permanently.

~~~
cookiecaper
Why are you so sure their intentions are pure or that "none of them are
genuinely bad guys"? Do you know the people that were there well? If you
don't, you're not really qualified to say this. People put a lot of time into
image and posturing and often it has little to do with what's really under the
surface.

If they are in actually involved in illegal collusion, they should be charged
and prosecuted. I don't think it's sufficient to say the damage to the
reputations of those involved is sufficient punishment if accusations of
conspiracy are correct.

~~~
techiferous
"genuinely bad guys"

Here's my take: generally, people and life situations are very complex and the
reality is that people don't neatly fall into categories of "good guys" or
"bad guys".

Zoroastrianism really emphasized individual responsibility and thinking of
individuals as good or bad. This made its way into Judaism and then spread
into Christianity and Islam. Since our heritage as a nation is Christian, we
have picked up this paradigm of thinking in terms of "good guys" and "bad
guys". It also features heavily in our storytelling (movies). It's so much a
part of our way of looking at the world that we actually think it's real.

tl;dr: People are too complex to be labeled "good" or "bad".

~~~
dkarl
You missed the context: _these guys were being bad and they got an appropriate
bitch slap. Hopefully that's the end of it. I'm sure none of them are
genuinely bad guys._

In other words, the point of them being "genuinely bad guys" or not is whether
the affair should be allowed to blow over after a few firm but loving
reproaches. staunch and cookiecaper are both speaking in the same terms, on
the assumption that only "bad guys" need to be punished harshly, because
non-"bad guys" want to behave well and just need a mild wake-up call now and
then.

Rejecting the concept of individual people with persistent qualities forces
you to argue in different terms, but it doesn't necessarily change the result
of the argument. So let's talk about punishment from the opposite orientation:

People exist in complex fields defined by their personal relationships and
social institutions. People tend to engage in behavior that results in
comfort, advancement, and social approval, they and tend to avoid behavior
that results in deprivation, loss of position, and loss of social capital.
Harmful behavior is controlled by ensuring that personal relationships and
social institutions punish bad behavior instead of rewarding it.

In this case, that means society should find out what these people did,
enforce any laws against it, and (in the case of people who know them and work
with them) shame them with disapproval and show an aversion to dealing with
them. Otherwise bad behavior will flourish and affect more people. We do not
want to be responsible for tempting people to behave in ways that are
injurious to others, because aggressive, selfish behavior harms those who
engage in it as well as their victims. If we, as a society, do not inflict
just punishment on those who harm others, then aggressive, selfish behavior
will increase, and there will be more suffering for both victims and
aggressors.

tl;dr: Rejecting the idea of "genuinely bad guys" leads to the conclusion that
they should be punished _regardless_ of whatever personal characteristics
might be ascribed to them.

~~~
techiferous
> Rejecting the idea of "genuinely bad guys" leads to the conclusion that they
> should be punished

The idea of individual punishment also was emphasized in Zoroastrianism and
spread its way into the global human psyche. Punishment is a very natural tool
for us but it's clumsy. I would elaborate more but it takes a lot of words to
explain a different paradigm and uncover hidden assumptions.

I'm not saying you're wrong; I just want to note that thinking in terms of
punishment is not the only way to think.

~~~
dkarl
Perhaps the idea that punishment should _always_ be individual, never
collective, started with Zoroastrianism (I haven't a clue) but individual
punishment predates it by a wee bit.

For example (got this all from Wikipedia; you can verify it there), the Code
Of Hammurabi predates Zoroastrianism by hundreds of years. Wikipedia lists
seventeen examples from the code; each example describes an individual
punishment based on individual responsibility for an infraction. (Since I
can't stop surfing Wikipedia now,) the Code of Ur-Nammu, "the oldest known
tablet containing a law code surviving today," also prescribes individual
punishments for individual infractions. It dates from the third millenium BCE,
predating Zoroastrianism by over one thousand years.

~~~
techiferous
Thanks, that's an important distinction. The punishment idea already existed;
Zoroastrianism simply emphasized _individual_ responsibility (and therefore
punishment). Thanks for the correction.

------
Sukotto
I find it hard to tell if this is a heartfelt attempt to "tell it like it is",
or masterful damage control to pull his buddy's ass out of the fire.

PG vouches for him (which counts for a lot) so maybe it's completely legit and
heartfelt.

If so, it does indicate a certain lapse of judgment on the author's part. Why
on Earth would he think something this inflammatory would stay secret? It must
be obvious to everyone involved that they have serious operational-security
issues. There's no way something like this would be kept private when the
members of the group couldn't even keep the existence and location of their
meeting a secret from a notoriously trigger-happy (and widely read) blogger.

If it isn't heartfelt, then it walks through the checklist of everything you
should do for damage control when you or someone in your circle faces an
accusation of collusion / conspiracy:

\- Loudly and vehemently disagree with the "bad group"'s philosophy;

\- Explain the presence of the buddy in "bad group" in terms of how he didn't
want to be involved but was sucked in and unable to escape. (Don't wave this
type away as "bad judgment" since it implies guilt);

\- Completely disavow the "bad" group;

\- Keep focus on how you only care about "good group";

\- Repeatedly assert that you always look out for "good group" and you would
never allow anything bad to happen to "good group"

(Incidentally, the spelling errors were a particularly nice touch.)

~~~
sliverstorm
It DOES have many grammatical flaws and the writing style strongly reminds me
of the unvetted typing of a classic older user who 'adopted' the net in his
later years.

The profile that his letter draws to mind strongly suggests to me that it was
either:

1) authentic and written by him and only him

2) _Masterfully_ manipulative and two steps ahead of me

~~~
ahoyhere
I'm personally convinced that it's both.

------
jackowayed
That's pretty linkbaity.

Dropping a "nuclear bomb" would be something like, "I have a recording from
the Bin 38 meeting that proves you were colluding. The FTC will start
examining it at 9am sharp tomorrow morning."

Sure, it's unusual for someone to so strongly come out and call people out,
especially people that he may want to invest alongside someday, but "nuclear
bomb" is a serious stretch.

~~~
marknutter
Right. He's used up his "nuclear bomb" title for the year. What happens when
something _truly_ scandalous happens? I suppose he could go up to hydrogen
bomb..

~~~
pjscott
Above that are _Tsar Bomba_ , small asteroid, large asteroid, and antimatter
bomb. If events get much more shocking, then we go up to disastrously-located
black holes and self-replicating berserker swarms. After that, I guess all
that's left is the ultimate menace of a superintelligent and profoundly alien
AI that cares only about maximizing the number of paperclips in the universe.

What I'm saying here is that Michael Arrington has plenty of room left for
hyperbole, even now.

~~~
Eliezer
<http://www.google.com/search?q=thunderbolt+singularity>

------
cletus
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
McClure's response wasn't defensive. Defensive would have been keeping quiet
and not admitting to have been there in the first place.

~~~
spoondan
Calling TechCrunch's reporting a "bullshit superangel conspiracy theory" is,
if nothing else, a prime example of defensiveness.

~~~
j_baker
No, that's disagreement. People who have something to hide usually don't draw
attention to themselves.

~~~
techiferous
I think your idea of defensiveness is different than most people's.

~~~
Confusion
I 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
> _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

      Of 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
Being 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.

~~~
Confusion

      So, the defensive reactions by both Dave and Ron indicates
      that there is probably substantial and threatening truth
      behind Michael Arrington's post.
    

False rumors, false accusations, slander, etc. can be pretty threatening
things that need to be defended against, because they can ruin you. People do
not seem to consider that option at all and the only evidence that is given is
that the reaction is 'defensive'. I wouldn't like to be a defendant in their
court. If you keep silent, you are guilty, because you are hoping it will blow
over. If you deny the accusations, you're just doing what you were expected to
do and the force of the accusation doesn't wane. When you defend yourself,
you're being defensive, which is an admission of guilt, because it
acknowledges there was a threat. A sad state of affairs, reminiscent of the
witch hunts.

------
jcnnghm
My respect for Arrington keeps going up, and I can't help but admire what Ron
Conway has to say about this. The no-bs approach works for him. I'm glad he
called out the writing, I guess McClure's money is still green, but I don't
think I could take anyone that writes like that seriously.

Edited for clarity.

~~~
mberning
You are going to criticize a guy based on a single private letter that he
wrote? Maybe he was feeling anxious and frazzled and wrote this email quickly
to help resolve his feelings. I know I certainly have, and I'm sure it was not
the most elegant prose ever constructed.

~~~
sparky
The parent meant that he is glad Ron Conway called out Dave McClure's response
to the original TechCrunch piece
([http://500hats.typepad.com/500blogs/2010/09/fire-in-the-
vall...](http://500hats.typepad.com/500blogs/2010/09/fire-in-the-
valley.html)). Took me a couple times to parse too :P

------
bretthellman
"Dave McCLure…pls try not to blog about this and cause silicon valley more
embarrassment with your unprofessional classless writings" OUCH

~~~
lotusleaf1987
I seriously don't understand how people were defending his writing style.
Anyone over ninteen would realize the use of multi-colored text, "drop a cap
in yo ass" lines, and lack of capitalization looks like you're lazy and
incompetent. I realize he's done fairly well in his investments, but does he
not have an extra 2-3 minutes to capitalize and think out more coherent
analogies?

~~~
zaidf
_does he not have an extra 2-3 minutes to capitalize and think out more
coherent analogies?_

The same way, I fail to realize how people don't understand that he writes in
that style not because he lacks a few extra minutes but because that is a
_style_ and _persona_ he's built over time.

~~~
Devilboy
'Asshole' is not a style

~~~
zaidf
Don't listen to rap, then. Stick with pop.

~~~
invisible
There is a difference between "being real" and "being an idiot." I don't want
to have an idiot involved in my company, so acting like one on your blog seems
dumb.

<http://www.snoopdogg.com/news/> <http://www.trapmuzik.com/news/>
<http://www.outkast.com/news>

------
faramarz
No one other Ron could have wrote this piece and I respect him all the more
for coming out and being clear about his position (as if you didn't know it
already).

I can predict two things;

1) The younger angels react and further split themselves from the Ron way of
doing business. or

2) You will hear no more about this public debacle. It's clearly bad for
business and any smart investor will shut up now.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
These guys appear to be a bunch of ego-driven alpha males. They can no more
stop talking about this, than piss up a tree.

In fact, being part of a macho secret conspiracy will probably inflame them to
further stupidities.

------
mhartl
Two reactions: (1) Ron Conway is a man of great integrity. (2) It's
astonishing and fascinating that the world's most prolific angel investor
apparently doesn't know how to spell "entrepreneur". But he sure has helped a
lot of them, and that's what really matters.

~~~
bootload
_"... he world's most prolific angel investor apparently doesn't know how to
spell "entrepreneur" ..."_

There is another (sneaky) explanation.

Ron simply sent out many of these emails to different people with another word
with incorrect spelling. This allows you to identify exactly _who_ leaks the
message. This is an old _"intelligence"_ trick used to identify the source of
information leaks.

~~~
mahmud
That would only work if he controlled the mailing-list server, assuming this
is an actual mailing list, and not a "CC all" ad-hoc solution.

~~~
bootload
_"... That would only work if he controlled the mailing-list server, assuming
this is an actual mailing list, and not a "CC all" ad-hoc solution. ..."_

Just email each individually.

~~~
mahmud
Unless the message is from angel-list@foo, I wouldn't automatically assume it
was sent to a bunch of people, and not just me.

If it's sent directly to one person, he would think twice before leaking it.

Anyway, this whole *gate crap is inane.

------
bl4k
McClure dug himself into a hole with his first response. He didn't think two
moves ahead. In poker parlance what McClure did was to bet the turn on a semi-
bluff not anticipating an all-in shove from his opponent on the river.

McClure's post - through both its style and its content, left an opening for
Conway to come out with this email. Dave is stuck now, and his only response
from here is to come clean in some way and clear the air.

McClure has made all sorts of mistakes, first the blog post, and then the
accidental tweet. He is not handling this very well and I feel for him because
he is the only person from the dinner who is speaking out. The other people in
attendance are suspiciously quiet (and giving away that they were there by
being quiet) and leaving it to Dave to do the talking (and not doing a very
good job for himself or for the rest of them).

~~~
iamwil
Which kinda sucks, since re-reading his post, it seems like he was invited
there. To me, it seems probable that he wasn't the ring leader(s), but merely
the one that's talking the loudest. Doesn't excuse the guy, but he's getting
the spotlight shone on him while the others sneak off into the night
unnoticed.

~~~
bl4k
this defense is not a whole lot better:
<http://twitter.com/jeff/status/25358068083>

------
HowardRoark
Ron Conway rocks but the email almost feels like it was intended to be leaked.

~~~
akjetma
He also could have been the one to tip Arrington to the meeting in the first
place. Then, after alleging that it was one of the others who had tipped
Arrington, he inspires mistrust among the colluding angels. This is all
speculation, obviously, and a little too ''evil' mastermind' to be based on
reality, I think.

------
nphase
The only thing that makes me seriously wonder if this is a fake is the
repeated misspelling of the word entrepreneurs: "entrepenuers"

Edit: I just realized I read the posts backwards. I suppose it's not fake if
that's actually what Dave McClure was referencing in his deleted tweet. Still.
Perhaps these "super angel" could do with some spelling and grammar lessons.
(Yes, I could probably use some too.)

------
nkohari
As an outsider to Silicon Valley, it really seems like it's full of drama and
ego wars. Seeing grown men and women argue like children really makes me happy
I resisted the urge to move out there.

~~~
Alex3917
I think of it like this:

L.A. = High school for adults

New York = College for adults

Silicon Valley = Middle school for adults

That's not meant as pure criticism, I actually kind of like it, but it just
gets annoying at times.

~~~
nostrademons
Boston = Grad school for adults. ;-)

Also, if Silicon Valley were middle school for adults, there'd be more girls
here.

~~~
Goosey
Austin = Smoking behind the bleachers for adults?

~~~
lrm242
All right, all right, all right.

~~~
zackattack
i would actually like the analogy continued.. i'm mobile and i find it to be
informative about various US cities.

------
mikeryan
Ron Conway rocks.

------
narrator
It almost reminds me of what happened with derivatives, securitization and HFT
on wall street. The game became all about bamboozling the regulators and
investors with complicated financial games instead of creating real wealth.

There's this ugly thing in American business where money is made on making
things overly complicated. Where instead of trying to solve economic problems
people are just trying to win at chess.

------
sachbh
F(orget) this s(tuff)! Lets go build great products and businesses. Its taking
away 15 mins we don't have.

------
quesera
Seriously, Ron Conway doesn't know how to spell "entrepreneur"?? If that's
possible, it's awesome, don't get me wrong, but it seems fishy.

~~~
waterlesscloud
It made me happy to see that someone who must have typed the word 50 jillion
times in his life can still get it wrong. It's a weird word.

~~~
quesera
Indeed. Actually, the more I think about it, the more I like it. I have to
believe it's intentional -- perhaps a conscious progression of the fluid
language. Or maybe he just has a thing against the French.

Either way, if anyone gets the privilege of defining a new spelling for the
word, Ron is a good candidate.

I think the community should embrace the new spelling, in appreciation. :)

------
JabavuAdams
With all the money and resources at these peoples' disposal, why the hell
would they meet at a bar / restaurant to plan their nefarious nefariousness?

Wouldn't this kind of business be better transacted on a yacht or submarine?

------
fady
via a comment on TC by "Hhhmmm":

This email reeks of someone trying to steer clear of trouble and keep their
name clean.

It also reads more like a public blog post, not a private email.

I wouldn't be surprised if Conway tipped TC himself.

Am I right in thinking Conway attended two meetings? If he disagreed so
strongly with what was being discussed, why return for the 2nd?

~~~
kyro
With the reply to that saying he never attended either of the meetings.

------
to_jon
As entrepreneurs, we need both Conway and the Super Angels. It's time for
everyone to get over these unfortunate meetings and forgive the participants.
Enough is enough.

Did they do something wrong? Hell yes. But it's been exposed, examined, and
discussed. Publicly stoning a group of angels represents the worst kind of mob
behavior and reflects poorly on entrepreneurs as an investment class. Let's
not forget that wealthy individuals have many different options for investing
their money that historically have higher rates of return (i.e. make more
money) than investments in startup companies. Many angels invest in startups
because it's more fun than profitable. Let's not change that dynamic in spite
of ourselves.

At the end of the day, we want angel investing to be the biggest game
possible. It's a surplus of angel money that has put entrepreneurs in the
driver's seat and made term sheets extremely favorable to founders. Fewer
angels in the mix and the scenario can change quickly.

It's time to prove that we're better than a small group of angels who engaged
in such unfortunate behavior. It's time to forgive and move on.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Ok, forgiveness is keen, but its not possible to forgive criminal acts. It's
not up to this community.

Personally I look forward to the shakeup. The money will find its own level,
whether its this group of idiots or some other.

------
jrockway
It would have been better.

If each sentence was not.

Its own paragraph.

~~~
lanstein
With some missing periods

------
annajohnson
I don't think there's anything suspect about Ron Conway's misspelling of
'entrepreneur'. He probably just banged out the email without doing a spell-
check. Let's remember it was a private email. Had he intended to have it
published he probably would have taken more care. I can't speak for Ron, of
course, but I will say that I frequently write the word "entrepreneur" (i.e.
in blog posts, emails, etc). I'm not sure why - maybe it's the way I touch-
type - but I often miss the second 'r'. I typically don't even notice until I
do a spell-check. All in all, I think it was just an innocent mistake.

------
varjag
> Please keep this confidential even though I know that will be hard since two
> of you let your egos take over and show Arrington how important you are by
> telling him you were headed to a “secret” angel gathering.

So true.

------
gaius
_I have stated consistently for year that I invest because I love helping
entrepenuers and watching them learn and succeed._

Oh please! We're all capitalists here, nothing to be ashamed of.

~~~
nocman
Conway didn't say that he's not interested in making lots of money. Sounded to
me like he was just pointing out that making money is not his primary
motivation for investing. Now, I don't know him at all, so I can't vouch for
whether he's being honest or not. However, I'd like to point out that there
are plenty of free-market-loving capitalists in this country (present company
included) who do the things they do with "making lots of money" quite a ways
down on their priority lists. In fact, many of us would be perfectly content
with just loving what we do, making enough to pay the bills, support our
families, and have a little bit left over to do some fun and meaningful things
with.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Agreed. I was asked by my boss to "examine my priorities" when I came in 5
after 8 from driving by son to his new school (we were moving, I wanted him to
be in same school for the whole year).

Next morning I delivered my prioritized list to him - work was #12. Try it,
you will be surprised.

Don't get me wrong, money is part of the equation for me, but certainly I
won't sacrifice health, family, security etc for a little bit more of it (or
for a particular job etc).

~~~
zackattack
How did he respond?

~~~
JoeAltmaier
I worked there for years after. I learned later he was stressed that day -
three separate people walked into his office at different times, saying they
were going to quit if something didn't change (I wasn't one of them). I guess
he changed, I didn't hear any more about it.

------
yurylifshits
By the way, can this meeting be connected to Angel List (<http://angel.co/>)
in any way?

As far as I understand, Angel List is an effort to create a centralized
curated marketplace for angel investing. Seems very similar to AngelGate. Even
if these are unrelated, I wonder, whether Angel List can be viewed as
something against competition.

On the other hand, Angel List simplifies angel fundrising a lot and therefore
is beneficial for entrepreneurs.

~~~
jimboyoungblood
AngelList has about as much in common with AngelGate as it does the Hells
Angels.

AngelList is the single most democratizing, pro-competitive thing that has
happened to tech startup investing in a long time.

(Disclaimer: i'm one of the angels on the list)

~~~
yurylifshits
Happy to get my doubts answered :) And looking forward to use Angel List some
day in the future.

------
devmonk
As others said, I don't think I've ever see entrepreneur spelled entrepenuer
quite that many times before. If the nuclear bomb was mispelling entrepreneur,
it has been dropped.

Though, I appreciate Ron's willingness to speak out against the collusion of
these investors to wreak havoc on their competition.

------
leif
Man, sometimes I find it hard to express how much I love watching awkward
dudes with enough money to think they're important get into catfights across
blogs.

------
flocial
Ron Conway wasn't at the dinner in question. If you read all the information
out there, it all comes down to Mike got snubbed, made wild allegations in
anger, the first person to stand up (Dave) got ran over by the collective
truck, TechCrunch posts suggestive information and the party goes on. The ball
is still in Mike's court to produce something of substance.

At first, I admired Tech Crunch for having the guts to post something like it
but looking it over there's no substance to it. It's just yellow journalism
for the digital age. Complete rubbish that feeds into the collective psyche.

------
paramendra
My take home word from Conway's email: binary. Angelgate rolls on.
<http://goo.gl/fb/PpyhK>

------
jyothi
It is very difficult to be what Ron Conway is. Respect. He is not preaching
but living an example & telling others that it can be done. The problem is
that this mail was meant only for super angels to possibly introspect and be
influenced. Not to be beaten around in public forums embarrassing the
investors. Sometimes confessions in private work better as a fix. It is hard
in public.

If Arrington had any sense he would have kept quiet and not divert attention
to a debacle through TC at the cost of start-up community.

~~~
adammichaelc
I don't agree that Arrington should have kept quiet. When you shine a light in
a dark room you are able to see what people do when they think nobody is
looking.

In Arrington's case, he gave the world a front-row seat in a meeting where the
participants thought they were in private -- this is a very good thing in my
opinion. With few exceptions, transparency is a win for society and business
because it keeps people honest.

Arrington's report puts the "secret-meeting participants" on notice that they
can't get away with this kind of thing, and it also alerts entrepreneurs to
watch out for it. Both very good things.

~~~
dasil003
I agree with this assessment. Sure it's linkbaity and Arrington has an
ulterior motive of stirring up drama for page views, but at the end of the day
it passes the smell test. Not necessarily that collusion occurred, but just
that things may have been heading in that direction... it's probably a pretty
gray area when you think about all the way that angel investments are
structured and the diverse opinions among angles.

All the drama will probably blow over in a few days, and in the end both the
super angels and entrepreneurs will be better off for this ethics-check having
occurred.

------
joelmichael
Arrington feeds on drama, quite literally.

------
sahillavingia
Can someone get a shirt printed that says "I ♥ Ron Conway"? Thanks.

~~~
mandeepdhami
<http://bit.ly/d0uHHX> ;-)

------
livando
it's not a memo, it's a mission statement.

------
rblion
the godfather has spoken.

------
j_baker
This had me up until the McClure part. I'll need something more than an
anonymous source to believe it.

------
sinzone
Here the real-time debate: <http://office.mashape.com/question/debate.html>

------
rjurney
I'm having trouble believing this is not a hoax. This doesn't feel real to me.
The entire thing feels like it is staged by Arrington and McClure.

~~~
smoody
It's going to feel A LOT more surreal in the coming days I suspect. A lot of
people are going to go into serious a$$-covering mode to distance themselves
from these people as quickly as possible. It's not just a matter of
reputation, it's a matter of landing on the preferred side of the law.

Ron's email is great. I do wonder why he didn't write it before this whole
thing broke. I'm guessing it would have been even tougher.

~~~
Astro9k
Maybe this is the first a$$ covering salvo

