Quote: " I'd talk to the OP again, after I make it bigtime and roll up in the Maserati, with a 6' tall, red-headed supermodel with a Scottish accent on my arm... and I'd say "fuck you, dude" and then buy a round of beers and sit back and laugh about the whole thing."

He might be a professional success but based on this sample size, yeah, writes and thinks like a cocky 13yo until proven otherwise. No offense intended to anyone, of course.

Maybe it was satire.

You have no idea how common this method of thinking is, even by successful startup founders. Granted, most are more concerned about building a product people love, but some people thrive on proving people wrong, and that drives them to success.

I beat a lot of odds to get to where I am now.

Doesn't mean I act like a cock about it.

But isn't the poster explicitly demanding raw feedback? And isn't the article just pointing out that people get defensive when faced with raw feedback?

Your comment (although you're not the poster in question) kind of demonstrates the problem facing the VC author of the article.

Thanks, but this isn't really about me. I'm just sharing one person's (almost certainly not unique) attitude towards dealing with negative feedback / rejection.

I don't really have time to research everybody on HN.

Especially people who write like a cocky 13 year old.

N.B. This is far from my first account. Also, bringing out the 'tenure' argument is pretty old/lame. I was seeing that crap on Usenet and EFNet over a decade ago. Grow up.

People are accountable for what they do and say regardless of their track-record.

P.S. What makes it even funnier is that he's a consultant and he's only living up to the stereotype of greedy consultants. Outrageously comical.