I may not have been clear enough in explaining it, but my blog post isn't a direct response to Micah's, though I use his post for context. Mine is a response to the people who think they are hustlers (by Micah's definition), promote themselves as such, and are in actuality the type of people I describe. Unfortunately, they significantly outnumber hustlers who hew to the intended definition.

The post is also tinged with some additional dismay at my discovery that some of the hustlers held up in the valley as prime examples of the form have proven themselves to be sleazy as well. One of those people is who I refer to in the sentences about lies.

I think what Andrew ended his post with was really the point:

"I'd love to meet one who fits the intended description, but I imagine the real hustlers avoid the label. I certainly would - if only to avoid being associated with the rest."

I think, and I certainly hope, that Andrew wasn't trying to dismiss or detract from the value of hustlers as described by Micah. I think the entire post was about the choice of language.

From my own perspective, while I greatly appreciated the points Micah made in his essay I felt that the word hustler was being forced onto people for the sole purpose of having a convenient label like "hacker" for the business and pr side of things. That's certainly due to my own preconceived notions and experiences with "hustlers" in the negative sense. I don't think of those amazing business people I've worked with over the years as hustlers, and I'm not sure I have a label that would describe them. I do know that hustler isn't the word I'd use and if I was currently looking for someone like that right now that word wouldn't be used in my search.