[waleedka]

This is a general comment not specific to the topic at hand. If you have facts to share then do so. But if you 'feel' that someone has an ulterior motive and you share it in a public forum then many people might take it as fact or an anecdote. Some people might even repeat it to their own friends. By doing so you risk harming the reputation of someone who may be innocent of that accusation.

Let me demonstrate with an example: I 'feel' that you wanted to join GOAP because you wanted to hang out with attractive women. And I 'feel' that 500 Startups didn't respond to you because they recognized your sleazy intentions. And I feel that you got upset and this is your way of getting revenge. Now, obviously, I don't really feel that way. But I just wanted to show how easy it is to throw dirt at someone.

Let's stick to the facts, please.

disclaimer: I was in 500 Startups first batch.

[hitekker]

I would recommend adding a disclaimer to your comment, that 500Startups is one of the two principal investors in the startup you own and manage.

Otherwise, some may be inclined to question your motives.

Edit: The requested disclaimer has been added.

[waleedka]

Thanks! Done. Although I hope I was clear that my comment is general and not specific to the topic at hand. I just think people should share the facts but be careful about making assumptions.

[hitekker]

Sure.

The facts are that David Mcclure is stepping down due to his long-term sexual harassement of women:

https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/01/500-startups-dave-mcclure-...

And is shutting down investment funds associated with him: https://betakit.com/500-canada-to-shut-down-fund-investments...

Considering the article above says 500 startups is refusing to pay its bills, one person sharing an anecdote of 500Startups being flakey and perhaps being oriented towards David's libido, doesn't seem alarmist or unreasonable at all.

[richardknop]

All things equal I would argue with your argument. The fact that David Mcclure had to step down due to long-term sexual harassment of women makes the parent statement little bit less crazy. But still I would argue statements like that should not be made without direct evidence.

[chrischen]

I wasn’t in 500 startups or associated with them in any way but I wanted throw out there that I agree with waleedka. There’s absolutely no value in GP’s post and potentially does harm to the truth.

[elliotec]

I feel that the fact that the parent had a feeling specific to the topic at hand is completely relevant, and your comment warning against the "risk of harming the reputation" of this person, who already has a bad reputation, is not relevant to the discussion.

[borski]

The parent has nothing to do with this topic. This is about whether 500S can pay the money it owes to the startups they fund. The parent is purely insinuation and is not based in fact, nor is it relevant to the fund; rather, it is simply trying to throw shade at Dave McClure, who is no longer with the fund, regardless.

This is shown to be especially true by the fact that parent never even had a conversation with anyone at GOAP, as they didn't respond (by parent's admission).

[hitekker]

Not so much irrelevant as it is distracting; a tactic to defend the (increasingly-seeming) indefensible.