Mike, Despite your apparent cold war with us, all it would have taken you to get the facts is drop me an e-mail. Instead, you got it wrong o…

Mike, Despite your apparent cold war with us, all it would have taken you to get the facts is drop me an e-mail. Instead, you got it wrong on all counts: TechCrunch reports that our company is looking to raise $2 million to $3 million and that we are also considering selling the company. I can’t say this clearly enough: he is wrong on ALL counts. Let me elaborate:
— We may raise some more money but it is nowhere in the range Mike reports.
— We raised considerably less than a million in our first round from Greycroft partners…we didn’t disclose the round, but all we said was it was less than a million.
No, we are NOT looking to sell…not now, not in the near future. True, companies have approached us on whether we would consider the option, both in the past and even now, (some have even mentioned it publicly) but that’s probably happened to every company mentioned in Mike’s post. And my stock answer to anyone interested: We’re not yet ready.

So there you have it…over and out.

You’re subscribed! If you like, you can update your settings

By Rafat Ali

You're subscribed! If you like, you can update your settings

Related stories

  1. Michael Arrington does have a credibility problem and it will hurt his ultimate valuation. I agree that a blog can be a media company and credibility always has to be there. He seems to be overly casual with facts — to the point where you MUST question everything he says. Sorry, but I don't have to do that with the WSJ.

  2. Good. Keep growing. Keep rocking. And keep being the high end content in the space.

    Still, it's nice to be mentioned, eh? ;-)

  3. The reason why Arrington got his facts wrong is because he researched via Twitter. His facts were from his followers in Twitter and obviously did not bother talking to the subjects of his post… like you. Is that how you write and research for posts now? Via Twitter?

  4. #1,
    you believe what you read in the wsj?

    how's that bsc long position @ $100 treating you?

  5. I believe more of what I read in the WSJ than I do in Techcrunch. Sorry. If you feel that Techcrunch is a bastian of credibility then prove it. I'm all ears.

  6. errr, so sorry, but YOUR comment says: "M-U-S-T question everything…".

    frankly, i do not read tc, but i suggest YOU question everything from EVERY SOURCE…including paid content and wsj.

    what, no hulu pumping here today?

  7. I don't think I'm saying that you can completely trust all sources. IMHO Techcrunch is a specific offender and often uses gossip to replace facts.

  8. Scott Lawton (Blogcosm) Wednesday, March 19, 2008

    No trackback? OK, then here's a comment: Beyond just showing what he thinks of fact checking, Arrington's post was a revealing look into his view of the world. My take: <a href="http://blog.blogcosm.com/2008/03/19/michael-arrington-blind-man-blogosphere-elephant/">Michael Arrington is a blind man; the blogosphere is an elephant</a>.

  9. Credible or not, read it and weep ;-)

  10. great post, rafat. fwiw, i think your site's quite valuable and i'm glad you're not going anywhere. truth is i didn't get too excited reading the techcrunch post. as someone on this board earlier noted, arrington's credibility as a reporter is poor. isn't he the guy who said rupert murdoch would buy yahoo? :) that and a lot of other one-sourced rumors put out as fact…the dude must be feeling the heat because his stuff is getting really mediocre of late.

    anyway, keep doing the great work.

Comments have been disabled for this post