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:

For all the noisy hubbub over should-we-or-shouldn’t-we-publish confidential documents hacked from password-protected accounts of Twitter employees, as well as a Twitter spouse, it is actually pretty simple.

Stolen equals stolen.

But, because this is a “hot” issue and it concerns an even hotter Web 2.0 company–Holy traffic-gooser, Batman!–the debate will surely go on and on, even as the stolen information inevitably leaks its way out.

Still, let’s not pretend what it is and is not.

It is most definitely not, for example, one of those great dramatic moments in journalism.

Thus, comparing the ruminations over whether to publish egregiously obtained information–however true–to the debate over a major event like the New York Times publishing the Pentagon Papers is pathetic.

It is, though, a tempest in a Silicon Valley teapot.

In point of fact, my colleague Peter Kafka, who works from New York, wrote me tonight:

“Was at a fancy schmooze tonight packed with digital media bigwigs: Viacom, NBC, News Corp, plus lots of start-up guys. TwitterGate was on *no one’s* lips. I talked to one guy who has a stake in the company and he pretty much shrugged about it–several people had no idea about it at all. Total non-news.”

It is not, however self-righteously (and pompously) put forth, much of a dilemma.

As the very clever John Gruber of Daring Fireball put it: “What you may ask, is the dilemma, since it is clear that any decent human being would simply refuse to have anything to do with something so lurid?”

Indeed, it is unequivocally wrong to publish documents you know or think were stolen or hacked, because it is aiding and abetting that theft.

In this regard, then, there should be no difference between “Web” journalism and the old-fashioned journalism–acting as if the former gets a “process journalism” (what a crock!) pass at standards and ethics that should be eternal and unwavering, no matter the medium.

And it is a little like pitting “gay” marriage against marriage, in order to create a false dichotomy, designed only to obfuscate the issues.

So, it also isn’t kosher to try to take focus of your own wrongdoing by pointing to other practices, which is almost always an obnoxious reach by the willfully immature.

While comparisons to leaked company documents have been made–and BoomTown knows from leaked corporate memos–this is a lazy-man’s argument, since it simply does not track.

The Twitter docs were stolen from personal accounts, an obvious pilfer, which immediately changes the equation completely.

While you certainly can have a lively debate about whether Yahoos should pass along some widely distributed memo that CEO Carol Bartz penned to the company, it is not even close to the same thing.

And, more to the point, if someone sent me emails jacked from Bartz’s own email account, I would not need even a second to know I would never use such information.

As I tweeted earlier today: A credible source a reporter knows giving accurate info is clearly different from a thief rifling through someone’s sock drawer.

That is especially true when you use material from a person you do not know. For the record: When I post a company memo, for example, I know and check out exactly who’s giving it to me and I don’t publish stuff just because it happens to land in my email box.

And, a minor beef, blaming victims for the theft by saying they have weak or inadequate passwords is also pathetic. It’s kind of like blaming people for being robbed because they had crappy locks.

I suppose there is a point in there, but the real finger of blame should always be firmly pointed at the burglar and those who fence his nicked goods.

That brings me to my final point–thinking you can handle dirty material and then act as if your hands are clean.

How hands get dirty is a concept even my children understand.

And if my kids ever said: “Hey, this stolen stuff is going to get out anyway, so let me be the one to ladle it out as I see fit”–I’d ground them for life.