Now comes the backpedaling. Of course.

Today, well-known Silicon Valley angel investor Ron Conway sent a missive to his favorite missive publisher, TechCrunch.

It was a “clarification” of his earlier “leaked” email to Super Angels in which he lambasted them for a controversial dinner at Bin 38 in San Francisco.

At which one of his partners at SV Angel Partners was in attendance. At Conway’s insistence, as it turns out.

Oops.

Also in the say-what department, a blog post in TechCrunch today about how its TechCrunch Disrupt conference was not going to be all AngelGate read:

“The fact that some of them may or may not have had discussions that may or may not have been inappropriate is, in the end, a sidenote.”

BoomTown can’t mock that epic Silicon Valley statement any more than it does all on its own.

But, after the first decoding, here is the final one for Conway’s words, and then it’s time to leave this circus to the panel tomorrow:

Ron wrote: Last Thursday TechCrunch published a leaked email from me to some angel investors who attended the Bin 38 dinner.

This is the last time I am going to say anything about this topic since we must focus our attention back where it belongs…with the entrepreneurs and helping them build great companies!

Translation: Jazz hands!

And, as usual, MySpace’s Sean Percival does a great illo of the Super Angel menu at Bin 38, which I neglected to post last week:

Ah, there’s nothing like a manly hissy fit amongst a passel of white dudes in Silicon Valley to open the fall television viewing season!

In this latest episode of “Glee,” a group of Super Angel Cheerios–who apparently like a good bottle of Kistler or two–plot to stop the entrepreneur kids from getting to the valuations they’ve been working so hard to inflate.

Dave “Sue Sylvester” McClure uses his bullhorn blog to call foul about a not-naming-names-but-still-really-mad-as-hell story of collusion by that creepy kid from the school newspaper who wants to blackmail Rachel into a date.

Well, that got the gleek club’s teacher, Mr. Ron Conway, mighty irked, and so he wrote an email–which was somehow, in some way “leaked”–to express his various, sundry and decidedly complex feelings.

Thus, the need for a thorough decoding:

Ron wrote: Subject: Super Angels Gathering

Translation: I myself am a Super Duper Angel and therefore am not at all hurt that I was not invited to the fancy wine restaurant called Bin 38, which I would so enjoy.

Not. At. All.

Sigh. I love a good Kistler chard.

Was Sacca there?

Ron wrote: I want to share my views on the two gatherings you had in June and this week and what they represent in my opinion.

I want to clarify once and for all my total disagreement with your values and motives for being investors.

Translation: I was not there, but this does not stop me from completely going all Judge Judy–indicting, trying and convicting you, and despite the fact that one of my own partners was at the faux-controversial dinner.

I do this with a sense of righteous indignation that shall endear me to the entrepreneurs I would so dearly love to steal right out from under you.

Ron wrote: I have stated consistently for year that I invest because I love helping entrepenuers and watching them learn and succeed.

I am honored that entrepenuers share their crystal ball views of the future of innovation and technology with us and respect the guts it takes to start a company.

Translation: Here’s where I spread it on thick.

Just a small town geek
Livin’ in a lonely world
He took the midnight train goin’ anywhere (actually Palo Alto).

Just a city boy
Born and raised in a very nice crib in San Francisco.
He took the midnight limo goin’ anywhere (except not to Bin 38).

Some Supers in a smoky room
A smell of wine and cheap perfume
For a smile they can collude all night
It goes on and on and on and on.

Ron wrote: At SV Angel we try to reciprocate by adding value any way we can.

I think that actions speak louder than words and SV Angel has always been a friend of entrepenuers and we focus our business to help entrepenuers achieve success.

Translation: I might not be able to spell “entrepreneur,” and perhaps an SV Angel partner was present and accounted for at this dinner, but please instead focus on my jazz hands that are telling a tale of entrepreneurial adoration.

Ron wrote: The world of startups would be a better place if you spent less time complaining about deal structures, terms, vc’s, and valuations etc and the cars you drive, and just helped entrepenuers build their companies.

Translation: I have never complained about such things, except in the video below, in which I do.

Particularly about Porches. Um, Porsches.

Ron wrote: The Free Enterprise system is very efficient…why not let the marketplace demands decide on these issues, its worked for many many years. These startups are binary…they succeed or fail so why waste time on deal structures, terms, vc’s, and valuations etc and just help entrepenuers build their companies.

Translation: From this moment out, there will be no more convoluted term sheets from me. I am just going to leave a barrel full of money by the door of my “entrepeneur”-paid-for-it apartment and any nerd can grab a handful or two.

Ron wrote: In my opinion your motives are driven by self serving factors around ego satisfaction and “making a buck”.

My motives and values are very different.

Translation: To paraphrase a line from the upcoming movie about Facebook–which is one of my investments, in case I did not mention it:

Making a buck isn’t cool. You know what’s cool? Making a billion bucks!

Ron wrote: They are so different I want to be up front with you and recognize this and disengage from any involvement with you. I will not be a hypocrite.

I think you have a different value set and lets agree to disagree and not have to even engage in any idle chit chat or discussion of any sort….ever.

Translation: Super Duper Angels are from Venus, Super Angels are from Mars.

Ron wrote: Furhermore, I regret David Lee was involved in the gatherings. I am sure he does too.

We talked about the first dinner and I encouraged him to write the email above and withdraw…I know he was uncomfortable with both gatherings…where no one was there to speak up for the interests of the entrepenuers.

Translation: David Lee, my partner, was very uncomfortable at the gathering. Which is why he went twice.

Two times, to make sure he was completely regretful.

One. Then two. He felt just awful.

To be fair, the wine was superb.

Ron wrote: By now you are rolling your eyes and saying “Ron’s a ___________(fill in the blank)…and who is he to pass judgement…..

We are all entitled to our opinions.

‘
Translation: How about this fill-in-the-blank: Ron’s a little old to be throwing mud pies at the other investors in a digital sandbox.

We are all entitled to our opinions.

Ron wrote: I am just being honest and transparent….the way most of the entrepenuers I invest are…

What do you think the entrepenuers you have funded are thinking right now.

Translation: Does this sound like pandering to the cheap seats, while also engaging in some not-so-subtle self-aggrandizement? Perish the thought!

But here’s what I hope they are thinking–let’s all dump the Super Angels and go back to Silicon Valley’s original Sugar Daddy Ron.

Ron wrote: This is despicable and embarrassing for the tech community in my opinion.

Can you learn from this ?

Translation: Oh, dear–here’s the part where Mr. Schuester sums up what all the kids learned this week, perhaps via a poignant song. I hope it’s not from “Cats.”

Ron wrote: Please keep this confidential even though I know that will be hard since two of you let your egos take over and show Arrington how important you are by telling him you were headed to a “secret” angel gathering.

Translation: Yes, don’t leak this by any means. Not by email, which works perfectly if you use your personal Gmail account.

I also have no idea how every investment strategy deck I do somehow reaches TechCrunch in its entirety.

It’s a mystery wrapped in an enigma wrapped in a Gmail–you know, in case you did not know, I was a very early investor in Google (GOOG).

Ron wrote: Dave McCLure…pls try not to blog about this and cause silicon valley more embarrassment with your unprofessional classless writings

Translation: Yes, Dave, leave the unprofessional classless writings to the professionals. Like BoomTown!

Ron wrote: Note: I did not include those who were at the gatherings who I don’t know well enough to form an opinion around their motives or values.

Translation: You’re next if you keep messing with my Super Duper Angel investing business.

Don’t stop believin’ that.

And here’s Ron unplugged:

Last week, BoomTown translated an opinion piece written by Google CEO Eric Schmidt and published in The Wall Street Journal that focused on defending the search giant from criticism that it was, well, killing journalism.

One of the louder critics, in fact, has been Rupert Murdoch, chairman and CEO of News Corp. (NWS), who has been loaded for bear in regard to Google (GOOG), leveling a series of high-profile verbal attacks on the company.

Last week, Murdoch published his own piece in The Journal, which he owns (along with this Web site), on the topic of the wrenching changes in the news business and in which he never mentioned Google by name.

But the company was there anyway, so, in the interests of equal opportunity balloon-pricking, I must also render Murdoch’s post through my decoding machine, because it’s only sporting!

His op-ed, The Journal noted, “has been adapted from his Dec. 1 remarks before the Federal Trade Commission’s workshop on journalism and the Internet.”

What Murdoch wrote: Journalism and Freedom

By RUPERT MURDOCH

Translation: Crikey, as they say in Australia, I have been getting a little wobbly over Google’s growing power, but those bludgers in government will always make me go more troppo.

And, unlike Eric Schmidt, I didn’t need to be called Emperor Palpatine to scare people. Plain old “Rupe” works just fine to give most people the shakes.

What Murdoch wrote: We are at a time when many news enterprises are shutting down or scaling back. No doubt you will hear some tell you that journalism is in dire shape, and the triumph of digital is to blame.

My message is just the opposite. The future of journalism is more promising than ever–limited only by editors and producers unwilling to fight for their readers and viewers, or government using its heavy hand either to overregulate or subsidize us.

Translation: Please try to ignore the salient fact that it was actually Rupert Murdoch–me!–who has been loudly clanging the bell of late about how Google is laying waste to journalism, much as Sean Hannity did to that poor Alan Colmes nightly for a dozen years.

Also, please ignore that I am saying my message is just the opposite, because–really–I hate government more than I hate Google, so this makes perfect sense if you really think about it.

But don’t think about it, mate!

Murdoch wrote: From the beginning, newspapers have prospered for one reason: The trust that comes from representing their readers’ interests and giving them the news that’s important to them. That means covering the communities where they live, exposing government or business corruption, and standing up to the rich and powerful.

Does this mean we are all going to succeed? Of course not. Some newspapers and news organizations will not adapt to the digital realities of our day–and they will fail. We should not blame technology for these failures. The future of journalism belongs to the bold, and the companies that prosper will be those that find new and better ways to meet the needs of their viewers, listeners, and readers.

Translation: Teri: Cue the speech about what journalism means for the little people! But also make sure we get in how News Corp. gets all this digital hoo-ha too and how we are not going to let those pointy-heads of Silicon Valley think we are not ready to rumble!

What Murdoch wrote: First, media companies need to give people the news they want. I can’t tell you how many papers I have visited where they have a wall of journalism prizes–and a rapidly declining circulation. This tells me the editors are producing news for themselves–instead of news that is relevant to their customers. A news organization’s most important asset is the trust it has with its readers, a bond that reflects the readers’ confidence that editors are looking out for their needs and interests.

Translation: There was a trophy cabinet and award wall just like that at The Wall Street Journal before I bought it. I ate it it for breakfast.

What Murdoch wrote: At News Corp., we have been working for two years on a project that would use a portion of our broadcast spectrum to bring our TV offerings–and maybe even our newspaper content–to mobile devices. Today’s news consumers do not want to be chained to a box in their homes or offices to get their favorite news and entertainment–and our plan includes the needs of the next wave of TV viewing by going mobile.

The same is true with newspapers. More and more, our readers are using different technologies to access our papers during different parts of the day. For example, they might read some of their Wall Street Journal on their BlackBerries while commuting into the office, read it on the computer when they arrive, and read it on a larger and clearer e-reader wherever they may be.

Translation: Teri: Tell Jon Miller to get on a plane stat and start chit-chatting with those Asian manufacturers asap. I am not going to let Amazon (AMZN) head Jeff Bezos guffaw me into oblivion with his Kindle or have “American Idol” get hijacked by Apple (AAPL) or have those Google (GOOG) twins shine me on, even as they are developing some magic mobile phone.

What Murdoch wrote: My second point follows from my first: Quality content is not free. In the future, good journalism will depend on the ability of a news organization to attract customers by providing news and information they are willing to pay for.

That’s not going to change, even in a boom. The reason is that the old model was founded on quasimonopolies, such as classified advertising, which has been decimated by new and cheaper competitors such as Craigslist, Monster.com, and so on.

Translation: My second point follows from the first: We can’t charge for milk when we have been giving away the cow for free.

And, frankly, the old media have been lending out Bessie to every Web site that comes looking for a gallon, free of charge, in abject fear that no one likes milk anymore.

In the good old days, when we were the only beverage around–I like to call it a “quasiMOOnopoly”–we could set any price we wanted.

Now, unfortunately, everybody’s got milk.

What Murdoch wrote: In the new business model, we will be charging consumers for the news we provide on our Internet sites. The critics say people won’t pay. I believe they will, but only if we give them something of good and useful value. Our customers are smart enough to know that you don’t get something for nothing.

Translation: People will pay, once we de-index our sites from Google and they can’t get their daily dose of the New York Post’s Page Six for free. Where else will they get the latest online tidbits on the Tiger Woods scandal, for example?

Okay, from everywhere. But Page Six names at least 46 percent more mistresses than TMZ, and that’s worth something.

What Murdoch wrote: That goes for some of our friends online too. And yet there are those who think they have a right to take our news content and use it for their own purposes without contributing a penny to its production. Some rewrite, at times without attribution, the news stories of expensive and distinguished journalists who invested days, weeks or even months in their stories–all under the tattered veil of “fair use.”

Right now, content creators bear all the costs, while aggregators enjoy many of the benefits. In the long term, this is untenable. We are open to different pay models. But the principle is clear: To paraphrase a famous economist, there’s no such thing as a free news story, and we are going to ensure that we get a fair but modest price for the value we provide.

Translation: By “friends,” I mean “sworn enemies,” also known as “Google.” (Until it meets with me to do a deal and then it is “friends” again.)

By “tattered veil of ‘fair use,’” I mean “the law I am going to get gutted by my 1,473 lobbyists in Washington, D.C.”

By “to be impolite, it’s theft,” I mean “to be impolite, it’s theft by Larry and Sergey.” (Until they meet with me to do a deal and fork over the moolah, and then it will be a “business arrangement.”)

By “there’s no such thing as a free news story,” I mean “I hope to trick those Google-obsessed Bing boys at Microsoft (MSFT) into paying me that boatload of money they aren’t sending Carol Bartz of Yahoo (YHOO).”

What Murdoch wrote: Finally, a few words about government. In the last two or three decades, we have seen the emergence of new platforms and opportunities that no one could have predicted–from social networking sites and iPhones and BlackBerries, to Internet sites for newspapers, radio and television. And we are only at the beginning.

These developments mean increased competition, and that is good for consumers. But just as businesses are adapting to new realities, the government needs to adapt too. In this new and more globally competitive news world, restricting cross-ownership between television and newspapers makes as little sense as would banning newspapers from having Web sites.

Translation: Oh, I do not like Silicon Valley, but I dislike government even more!

And now that Google is its bogeyman instead of me, I really hope to finally be able to gut all those annoying cross-ownership rules that prevented me from owning the entire media landscape of every major city in America.

This must be done immediately, because those icons on people’s cellphones–especially that dangerous iFart app–are poised for attack!

What Murdoch wrote: In my view, the growing drumbeat for government assistance for newspapers is as alarming as overregulation. One idea gaining in popularity is providing taxpayer funds for journalists. Or giving newspapers “nonprofit” status–in exchange, of course, for papers giving up their right to endorse political candidates. The most damning problem with government “help” is what we saw with the bailout of the U.S. auto industry: Help props up those who are producing things that customers do not want.

The prospect of the U.S. government becoming directly involved in commercial journalism ought to be chilling for anyone who cares about freedom of speech. The Founding Fathers knew that the key to independence was to allow enterprises to prosper and serve as a counterweight to government power. It is precisely because newspapers make profits and do not depend on the government for their livelihood that they have the resources and wherewithal to hold the government accountable.

Translation: You bailin’ out me? You bailin’ out me? You bailin’ out me? Then who the hell else are you bailin’ out? You bailin’ out me? Well I’m the only one here. Who the %*#! do you think you’re bailin’ out?”

What Murdoch wrote: When the representatives of 13 former British colonies established a new order for the ages, they built it on a sturdy foundation: a free and informed citizenry. They understood that an informed citizenry requires news that is independent from government. That is one reason they put the First Amendment first.

Translation: Teri: Please insert the clarion cry of the First Amendment here, as it always stirs the heartstrings.

What Murdoch wrote: Our modern world is faster moving and far more complex than theirs. But the basic truth remains: To make informed decisions, free men and women require honest and reliable news about events affecting their countries and their lives. Whether the newspaper of the future is delivered with electrons or dead trees is ultimately not that important. What is most important is that the news industry remains free, independent–and competitive.

Translation: Believe me, if we could push a button and get rid of the whole Internet, News Corp. and Time Warner (TWX) and Viacom (VIA) and CBS (CBS) and the whole lot of us old media players would.

Barring that, whether the newspaper of the future is delivered with electrons or dead trees is ultimately not that important.

What is most important is that the news industry shake down big piles of dough from those Silicon Valley moneybags–whether they be Google or that Mark Zuckerberg kid, whenever Facebook goes public, or those Twitter dudes (if they figure out a way to make any money outside of fund raising)–in order to remain free, independent–and competitive.

It is, after all, the American way.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

What is interesting here, though, are 100 percent unconfirmed hints that the next-generation iPhone will support faster 3G speeds. If this is indeed the case, it suggests that the device may run Infineon’s new SGOLD3 chipset. And if it does, that means it will be capable of supporting not just download speeds twice that of current 3G networks–theoretically 7.2 Mbps–but a five-megapixel camera and real-time video encoding/decoding with a new on-board video camera. Now that would make for an exciting summer, indeed.

BoomTown strives to bring readers the very best in internal memo decoding, and this one is just too good to pass up.

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer sent a short memo to employees this afternoon about finally hiring someone to head the software giant’s lackluster digital efforts.

That someone, as this column reported earlier today before the official announcement, was former Yahoo (YHOO) tech star Qi Lu. He will become president of the Online Services Group at Microsoft (MSFT), right after the new year.

Thus, let us try to read between the lines:

What Steve wrote: From: Steve Ballmer
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 1:39 PM
To: Microsoft–All Employees (QBDG)
Subject: New Leader of Online Services Group

Search, advertising and online services are critical to Microsoft’s long-term strategy. To succeed, we need the right talent. Today, I’m pleased to announce that Qi Lu will join Microsoft as president of our Online Services Group. Qi will oversee all efforts in search, our online advertising platform, and all of our online information and communications services. Qi will join Microsoft on Jan. 5 and report to me.

Translation: Really, taking five months to pick someone to head Microsoft’s most critical arena for the future is not a long time. If you’re counting in dog years, that is! Woof!

But, I digress, we have a winner and, best of all, he’s from Yahoo, costing us $39.9 billion less than it would have cost to get Lu with the whole company.

What Steve wrote: Qi is one of the most respected technical minds in the industry. He comes to Microsoft after 10 years at Yahoo, where he most recently served as executive vice president of engineering for all of Yahoo’s search and advertising development efforts. Before joining Yahoo, Qi was a researcher at IBM’s Almaden Research Center. He has a doctorate in computer science from Carnegie Mellon, and he holds 20 U.S. patents.

Translation: Did I mention that Lu is from Yahoo? Let me say it again: Yahoo. The YAHOO that refused to take our $31 a share offer. That Yahoo. The Yahoo where–at one time–engineers would never consider leaving the Jedi forces of Silicon Valley to join the Death Star.

Jerry Yang, I am your bother.

Also, did I mention 20 patents?

What Steve wrote: Qi’s combination of deep technical expertise, proven leadership capability and broad business knowledge is rare in our industry. There is no one better qualified to guide our work to reinvent search and online advertising.

Translation: By “reinvent,” I mean, stop the endless flow of cash out of Microsoft pockets, even as Google (GOOG) is minting money in the basement of that irksome Googleplex in the search business.

If Lu manages not to lose, say, $3.23 trillion dollars, I will consider it a job well done!

What Steve wrote: While I’m excited that Qi is joining Microsoft, I’m sorry to share the news that Brian McAndrews has decided to transition out of the company. Brian came to us with the acquisition of aQuantive in 2007. Since then, he has helped build a world-class business in online advertising that provides a solid foundation for future growth. I have great respect for the important contributions Brian has made to Microsoft, and I wish him the very best in the future.

Translation: OK, so I dragged my feet on this selection process long enough to make Brian feel really badly, given he wanted the job too.

But, he’s an “ad” guy and Microsoft’s track record with those who don’t consider pocket protectors the height of fashion is, shall we say, rocky.

But don’t feel bad for Brian–Microsoft bought aQuantive for $6 billion last year, and he was CEO. You do the math.

Of course, it would be deeply ironic if Brian suddenly was in the running for the now-open Yahoo CEO job and I was facing him over the negotiating table over the search deal Microsoft has been salivating over, despite trying to seem only mildly interested.

Brian, honey, don’t take it personally that I went for the geek. It’s in my DNA.

What Steve wrote: On Monday at 4 p.m. Pacific Time, Qi will join me at Café RedWest for an Employee Town Hall. I encourage you to attend or to watch the webcast. If you have questions for Qi or me, please send them in advance to and we’ll try to answer as many as possible.

Steve

Translation: Free nachos and unintelligible discussions about algorithms for all!