I notice that you haven't answered my explicit questions to you in the comment you're replying to, which makes me wonder if you're trying to play some kind of mind game with me. I will repeat them: Did I misunderstand your unstated premise? If that wasn't your unstated premise, then how was your comment relevant to my original comment?
Moreover, you seem to be attempting to rebut the proposition "that Google’s storytelling was bad", as if that were something I had said, when in fact I specifically disclaimed that interpretation in the comment you're ostensibly replying to: "I definitely don't mean to deprecate Google's founders or imply that they were mediocre at storytelling to investors or didn't spend a lot of time on it." Then, you summarized my comment entirely incorrectly as "just be Google, then you won’t need Storytelling (maybe, because maybe they were pretty good at it after all)".
I cannot tell if you are astoundingly incompetent at reading or intentionally lying about what I'm saying, which would make you astoundingly dishonest.
Now you’re trying to weasel your way out with ad hominems.
- the article suggests storytelling as a way to increase your funding chances.
- you say that’s stupid and needs to be solved
- I say it seems like a good idea if you want founders to be able to sell
- you say that’s not valid, giving, of all possibilities, Google as an example of how storytelling is unnecessary, regardless that (1) you don’t know how good they are in it and (2) they obviously were very successful in fundraising, the very topic of the article (did you even read it?) You also claim they did not tell their customers about what their product is, yet you also claim that their product was enough to keep them growing, apparently unbeknownst to their customers.
I don’t know man, if you can make sense of your arguments, good for you.
Moreover, you seem to be attempting to rebut the proposition "that Google’s storytelling was bad", as if that were something I had said, when in fact I specifically disclaimed that interpretation in the comment you're ostensibly replying to: "I definitely don't mean to deprecate Google's founders or imply that they were mediocre at storytelling to investors or didn't spend a lot of time on it." Then, you summarized my comment entirely incorrectly as "just be Google, then you won’t need Storytelling (maybe, because maybe they were pretty good at it after all)".
I cannot tell if you are astoundingly incompetent at reading or intentionally lying about what I'm saying, which would make you astoundingly dishonest.