That's exactly what I thought.

I'm not a techcrunch reader (actually, I find it mind-numbingly boring) but I'm not going to listen to competing publications saying how great its dimise would be for the world.

This is such a superficial comment, so obviously something anyone could say without even reading the article (which I know you did) that I'm compelled to ask you to defend it.

Is it really the case that TechCrunch is so obviously a good thing for startups that the only reason Fortune could be criticizing it is out of professional rivalry?

I found the article compelling and, within the confines of the format of a mainstream media "blog", not at all superficial.

I didn't think much of the article at all. Looks like the HN consensus agrees with me: mine's the top-rated response, and hopeless' comment agreeing with me ranks above yours.

> Is it really the case that TechCrunch is so obviously a good thing for startups that the only reason Fortune could be criticizing it is out of professional rivalry?

Is it really the case that you infer this from my comment? I'm compelled to ask you to list ten other reasons I might not be impressed with the article.

Yes, that's what I inferred from your comment. Because TechCrunch is so on-its-face terrible that a defense was was an interesting idea. But, do you have one? Or did you just an opportunity to snark about Fortune writing something negative about a competitor.

I am very impressed by your ability to harness the "consensus opinion of HN", as an aside. You'll have to teach me that trick sometime. ;)