That is a pissed off Michael Arrington. People need to remember that TechCrunch is a full time job. They need some revenue – which in today’s worlds are ads. Due to this there will always be conflicts of interest, tell me one publication which legitimately doesn’t have a conflict of interest. I would take everything with a grain of salt. If you call a guy an asshole, then how the do you expect him to review you or any service/software you release? TechCrunch is a small operation unlike the New York Times. So if you abuse, insult someone, use foul language then the door gets slammed in your face. That’s no way to get a review. This is pure common sense.
If you must criticize do so constructively, as that’s much easier to take. Negative criticism doesn’t get you anywhere. If anything it will only set you backwards.
Tracking so many companies is a tough job. Rob Hyndman says:
I actually can’t remember a time when any one publication had so many exclusives on breaking M&A news in a sector. Is there really any surprise that he’s starting to see more drivebys?
That definitely seems to be the case here. As you get more popular, people start finding more dirt to shovel and start making mountains out of mole hills more often.
Rushi's Ramblings 
You know, I agree with you. Especially with this:
“If you must criticize do so constructively, as that’s much easier to take. Negative criticism doesn’t get you anywhere. If anything it will only set you backwards.”
My admittedly abrasive rant was purely a reaction to his criticism (also abrasive) of an honest effort to open a dialogue about an important and relevant topic.
It is BECAUSE he is so respected and so widely read that he opened himself up to the criticism of me and others when he (for the third time) referred to us as “shills”, “whores”, “obfuscators”, “liars”, and “polluters”.
If he isn’t going to be fair he shouldn’t expect fairness. Even if the unfairness is only 2% of what he writes, it’s still unfairness.
Oh…and ps. I am a person, not a company. I have a business of my own that is not related to the Internet at all, and my interest in the Internet is purely from a personal standpoint.
The only junction that I have with him is the fact that he criticized a concept that I happen to think is innovative and which I am trying.
I have no axe to grind with him about any other issue. I’ve actually referred many of his articles to friends and colleagues who ARE involved in Internet startups and advertising.
Regarding Post #1: I agree that Mike shouldn’t have resorted to name calling by saying shills/whores/liars etc. but it’s hard to keep your calm when your in Mike Arrington’s position taking so much heat
Regarding your second comment: It wasn’t directed at you. It was regarding a quote from Mike’s post on CN about a person from Mothersclick (The Digg quote)