In LA, I think 4 of the 5 are now "done deals". In Boulder, I know that at least 3 of the 5 (that I've heard about) have new interest from investors they'd didn't know before OAF. I am looking at 1 or 2 closely myself.

you forgot colorblind. ;-)

Dude. The shirt is gold, not yellow. LOL. Get the metaphor? ;-)

no, i was saying that you might enjoy reading it to think about the other side of the coin. perhaps not.

i didn't phrase anything in an intentionally misleading way, and "playing politics" is not something i've ever done. i actually hate politics. Naming the gov was simply an appeal to him. He's been amazing at supporting the growth of the tech industry here in Colorado, and I'm simply expressing my view that this undermines those efforts. Also, I think fundraising letters usually ask for money. Thanks for your comments - but I'm happy to agree to disagree. By the way, this might be a fun read for you: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12314636356716667...

not sure what you mean about "railing against special interest groups".

Thanks for the note. I've always said we blog to learn.

One of the challenges of this bill being rushed through is trying to get all the facts in such a short time frame. I actually knew that it was removing an exemption. I don't think the statement you pointed out is misleading though. If this passes, we'll be paying tax on software when we weren't before. Let's not get caught up in semantics.

Point taken on the loophole, but it appears the effects are the same regardless of the mechanics.

that is the plan, and that's why it's that night. ;-)

stay tuned to the comments here for info on remotes...

When I saw your comment, I said "well, why can't he?" I spoke to Nicole and we're going to try figure out a way to have people in remote places list their interests and participate remotely.