[mnemonicsloth]

Dude, you've got every right to stand up for your reputation and your business model, but your post is completely inappropriate in this setting.

It sounds like the script a telemarketer reads you after interrupting your dinner. Like PR and Legal tweaked the language to make it optimally appealing, synergistic, and defensible.

Boilerplate gets no respect in this community. How can you not know this after being a member yourself for the last two years?

[davidsrose]

ROFL! mnemonicscloth, you've made my day! It took me an hour and a half to write that post in direct response to Paul's, and it's certainly not boilerplate (feel free to Google any chunk of it you'd like, and I'd be surprised if you'd find even a single sentence written anywhere previously). But if the result was "optimally appealing, synergistic and defensible", the 90 minutes was absolutely worth it [grin].

Seriously, I'm a big fan of Paul's, and he knows it (and we know each other). I was simply responding to an overly broad-brush, inaccurate indictment (that he likely tossed off quickly) with a calm, factual response clarifying what the real story is. I believe it is completely appropriate for this forum, and I'm happy to continue the discussion either here, on my own blog (rose.vc/angelnotes) or by email (david AT angelsoft.net).

For those who would like to delve further into the role of Angels-Other-Than-Paul, there's a good book that has recently been published titled "Fool's Gold?: The Truth Behind Angel Investing in America" by Scott Shane. While I happen to personally disagree with the tone (and some of the conclusions) of the author, there's no question but that he is a serious researcher in the field, and that his underlying facts are essentially correct.

Thanks again for your comments, and feel free to email directly if you'd like to continue taking me to task :-).

-David

Disclaimer: "No Boilerplate, PR, or Legal Personnel were harmed (or used) the making of this post or the previous one."