So yeah, Valleywag gave me shit for writing about Pownce the other day, saying I should have disclosed any type of relationship I have with one of its co-founders. I suppose that could be up for interpretation…maybe, but here’s my take.

1) That’s one of the beats (micro-messaging/micro-blogging) the I write about daily on VentureBeat. I’ve covered Pownce extensively in the past both here and on VentureBeat. I thought Pownce going down for several hours was worthy of a mention just as it is when Twitter used to go down every second. Sure, it’s not as big (which I noted very clearly) but it is still the 2nd biggest of those types of sites.

2) Really the only problem I have with Owen’s take is the “flatteringly” part. I fail to see how writing about a site failing and that it’s traffic is far behind the leader in the category (Twitter) is flatteringly. I did say that it has some better features than Twitter, but again, I’ve said that at least a hundred times in the past — well before I knew Leah.

3) I fail to see how I benefit in anyway by writing about Pownce — even if I were to write something positive. Obviously, the biggest problem most people have with conflicts of interest is financial incentives for those involved. Clearly, I have none here.

4) It opens the door to at least 10,000 other disclosures. Most every journalist in Silicon Valley has some sort of personal relationship with someone at one or many of the companies they cover. Some are well known, some are not well known. Some are disclosed, some are not disclosed. Again, I wonder if they should have to be if there is no obvious benefit to the parties involved.

5) Really, what it all comes down to is objectivity. All I can say is that regardless of any relationship I have, I’ll remain objective about what I’m talking about. It’d be silly not to be, everyone would realize it. It’s not like I was trying to slip one past the goalie here.

6) I appreciate being called “handsome.”