I should have been more explicit (and I had already read your disclosure statement).

The bit that I feel needs clarifying (especially so with the recent coverage over the Microsoft deal) is the description in your disclosure statement of what Megan does at Google.

Obviously many of your readers, like Felix, are in the know, but I think that the level of her involvement in deals like the Microsoft one is not clear from her job title.

Only yesterday there was a piece on NBC News about the overuse of the title vice president in corporate America.

And by the way, I agree that a $15bn valuation for Facebook is daft but, as you mention, MS did this deal for lots of reasons, not least to get its ad technology out there. So, of course, it’s way expensive but it shouldn’t necessarily be used as a straight valuation metric.

How much I enjoy our back and forth.

But let me once again best you!

1) high valuation? sure.

but don’t think for a second that Google wouldn’t have taken those terms as well if they could have gotten them.

for once, the shoe was one on the other foot — Google was Facebook’s stalking horse, and they always intended to do the deal with MSFT given the same terms.

I DON’T KNOW ABOUT THIS, BUT I DO SUSPECT MSFT WAS ALWAYS OUT FRONT IN THIS, GIVEN THE LONG-TERM RELATIONSHIP.

whether or not they can prove out the valuation, both Google and Microsoft were ready to value it at $15B, and “hedge-tards” or not (love that handle), there were multiple folks ready to pay up.

AHA, EXCEPT THAT WAS TRUE IN THE LAST IDIOTIC BUBBLE WITH ALL SORTS OF BLUE-CHIP FOLKS READY TO HAND OVER DOUGH TO A BUNCH OF CRAPPY COMPANIES.

I BELIEVE IT IS CALLED THE GREATER FOOL THEORY.

Kara: maybe you should go back to the shed on this one & re-think. you’re right the valuation is aggressive, but you’re dead wrong that it’s dubious or ridiculous. continuing to deny there’s some “there” there is short-sighted.

I HAVE BEEN TO THE SHED AND I THINK NOW: COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS! ABSOLUTELY DUBIOUS! ALSO THE INVESTORS AND MSFT WILL PROBABLY DO OKAY UNTIL THE ECONOMY TANKS (SEE GREATER FOOL THEORY ABOVE).

they may be toy apps right now, but this is just the beginning of the revolution.

AHA A TOY GUN REVOLUTION! COUNT ME OUT UNTIL WE GET SOME REAL FIRE POWER!

I appreciate the support, but I only have eyes for Jerry Yang when it comes to lunch.

You are not mistaken, although Megan worked with a team of people at Google, most of whom were her bosses, all reported in Valleywag, on the possible Facebook deal.

Still, I posted specifically on that and linked to the Valleywag item and even confirmed it and gave Valleywag an on-the-record quote about it. I also repeatedly linked to the Valleywag item and referred to it.

I also posted that I was refraining from writing about a story I was very much all over for months now (and breaking stories on), while the deal was going on (even stooping to do a silly but fun post on vacation photos of Facebook execs).

And I always linked prominently and twice in most posts to the main disclosure related to Megan.

But that deal is finished and I am still maintaining the same line related to this ridiculous valuation and the unproven business model that I have consistently done and in post after post for months.

If Google had won the deal, I would have said it (and, by extension, Megan) was wrong to do the deal for the reasons I outlined. I promise I would have whacked the Google in the same manner and essentially said Megan and the Google brainiacs were as nuts as Steve Ballmer. And that’s saying something!

I am sorry if you feel duped, but I have covered the Internet for a dozen years decade for major media outlets, have written two book on the subject and now co-run the leading digital conference. I think I can parse what is going on without favoring Google (which I have called in this column: arrogant and dangerous many times) and will rise and fall on the depth and quality of my analysis.

Please read my disclosure here and call me on it when you think I am wrong. But I am trying to be as transparent as possible and as clear to readers as I can be.

See here:

http://allthingsd.com/about/kara-swisher/ethics/

You know how much I love countdowns!

Sorry about the comment system, but I think we’re aiming a little higher than Valleywag level, where I was recently called an ignorant slut (by the editor!). But we will consider your request to make it easier.

Re: rest of company: other execs and employees, other investors, the company kitty. It all adds up!

Most people are going with the”experiment” reason for MS investment. As in: Who cares? It’s only $240 million!

Wheeeee!

but don’t think for a second that Google wouldn’t have taken those terms as well if they could have gotten them.

for once, the shoe was one on the other foot — Google was Facebook’s stalking horse, and they always intended to do the deal with MSFT given the same terms.

whether or not they can prove out the valuation, both Google and Microsoft were ready to value it at $15B, and “hedge-tards” or not (love that handle), there were multiple folks ready to pay up.

Kara: maybe you should go back to the shed on this one & re-think. you’re right the valuation is aggressive, but you’re dead wrong that it’s dubious or ridiculous. continuing to deny there’s some “there” there is short-sighted.

they may be toy apps right now, but this is just the beginning of the revolution.

It’s like insider trading — almost everyone in the financial world (my sector) has the opportunity to do it. But no one with any ethics or foresight ever does. If Kara’s purpose in writing were to defend her partner’s career, surely she wouldn’t have made it this far. It just doesn’t work that way.

Kara, I am always defending you and we’ve never even met! You owe me lunch.