People are people and everyone has their flaws. Idols and Celebrities are first idealized, then put under a microscope. Then we complain when they act like mere mortals.
Personally, I like having people who say exactly what they think in prominent position in the tech world. The more they anger people, the better. What a boring world it would be if nobody ever said anything for fear of offending.
That's ad hominem and unnecessary and downright offensive. You should judge Dave McClure on his acts as an investor or advisor. HackerNews is meant to be a constructive forum, and this comment was anything but.
It would be an ad hominem if I were in an argument with Dave and instead of listening to his points attacked him personally. In this case I'm talking about needing to see the forest for the trees. I'll gladly judge him on his acts a person in the position of being a gatekeeper to a world people build lives hopes and dreams on. You don't have to be a dick to be a good investor and advisor.
And we shouldn't discuss him based on his self-established public persona in a public forum? I worry that we're building a culture of internet builders that excuse boorish behavior because someone has a platform or something we need access to. I may be wrong to call him a dick in general but his reaction in this case can certainly be called 'dickish'.
The same sort of behavior from Linus has been bothering me as well. Linus may hold the keys to something many people want access to, but that doesn't justify his recent behavior. When you are in a position of authority, you should hold yourself to a higher standard.
When 500 Startups didn't have the influence it does now, Dave McClure's schtick may have made sense as a marketing ploy. But the days of needing over the top rhetoric to get attention are over.
Compare Dave McClure with Jack Dorsey. Who would rather work with and who sets a better example for the technology industry to follow?
I disagree with you, but I also disagree with those who would disagree with you. To put it shortly--I think Linus has every right to be an asshole to people who want to contribute to "his" project.
And I think we have every right to be mad at him for it.
And I think he has every right to tell us to piss off for being mad at him for it.
And I think we have every right to be mad at him for that.
Linus has a right to act however he wants. That doesn't make it right, and frankly it doesn't give me a higher opinion of him. We've seen thread after thread in the past couple weeks about the "locker room" mentality of the industry, but from my seat it seems like a lot of people are condoning it.
I don't know anything about "the industry", since I go out of my way to avoid working in "the industry"--but I want "going to work" to be another way to say "going to go goof off with my friends in a way that makes us money somehow." And I like it when my friends act like assholes; it's amusing, because I know them well enough to know it's not really all that serious.
That might not work very well when your coworkers aren't your friends--but really, that's the problem with that, not anything to do with objectively objectionable behavior.
"When you are in a position of authority, you should hold yourself to a higher standard." Why? Says who? As soon as people make it to a certain level, they should change? What level? If they're no longer who they were, what do you expect them to achieve in the future?
There are 7 billion people on the planet, the vast majority of them do not share your values.
Words of wisdom. Besides, I'm the one to blame. If I would try to built an honest relationship with Dave and his network during past 12 months I wouldn't need to stalk him at the Launch Festival. My point is that cold-pitching people is risky and almost disrespectful to both parties (!). Just as investors should be respected as human beings and they deserve to be treated as humans (not wallets), entrepreneurs shouldn't knee before investors and almost beg for money with their pitch- we're the one building amazing companies after all.
