undefined | Better HN

0 pointsrexreed13y ago0 comments

I'm not sure I interpret the above post you respond to as an attack.

If I were to overly simplify, the summary of the OP Post is: "We reserve the right to lie, because we feel you can't handle the truth"

And many entrepreneurs respond: "If you can't feel fit to tell me the truth, then we don't have a relationship based on trust. And that means, there is no relationship."

If the OP's opinion is honest and forthright (ironic given that it is asserting a right to lie), then the entrepreneur's response is just as justified in being honest and forthright (we reserve the right to not work with liars).

If the desire to lie on the part of the VC is simply to avoid the pain of dealing with upset enterpreneurs or the potential of burning bridges, then they need to accept that they may offend other entrepreneurs who more value honesty over lying for the sake of avoiding hurt feelings.

0 comments

jayliew13y ago

Perhaps this is merely a difference in perception. I re-read nirvana's post I originally responded after reading your perception of it, and it comes off defensive and passive aggressive. In particular:

"Thus, given that we've decided your team is not strong enough to be investors in our company we're going to pass." <-- well if the VC's team is not strong enough to be investors, why were you pitching them for money in the first place? Seems to me like if you'd pitching them, then clearly you thought they were good, because you're trying to get something out of them. Therefore, a "you're not good enough for us anyway" response reminds me of the story of the fox and the sour grapes[1].

Perhaps also a difference in perspective, Josh suggested a solution at the end of the post - so to me, it's not justifying lying as it is merely stating that something is broken, and here are some steps to take a stab at solving the problem.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fox_and_the_Grapes

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse