I agree: Fool.com now corruptly protects shills and suppresses dissent
I agree: Fool now protecting shills and kills dissent, but unwittingly
I disagree: they may be shills, but Fool just wants civilit
I disagree: they are not shills, Fool is right, Byrne is a nut
Click here to see results so far.
Click here to see results so far.
Patrick,So I wanted to ask carefully for the opinion of the Fools, not to insult anyone, but just to know if I were paranoid.You should ask a medical professional for a diagnosis if you are concerned whether or not you are paranoid. I believe it is incredibly inappropriate for the Fool to own the tool of discourse, mold the tool of discourse through Seth, and then prohibit the one tool that would let the rest of us Fools communicate our perceptions without risk of distortion.I haven't felt any limitations to communication of my perceptions here. Perhaps you could explore the use of the tool of discourse at Bob's blog. I feel confident you would come away from that site assured by all that you are not paranoid.
Dude, you got issues.
But I am not sure, I admit. So I wanted to ask carefully for the opinion of the Fools, not to insult anyone, but just to know if I were paranoid. So I posted a poll asking for other folks' read on this issue, starting with Seth. I think this was a legitimate question for me to wonder about, and hence, a legitimate question for me to pose to the Fool community. Early reads of the poll showed that most Fools strongly suspected Seth of being compromised.Very scientific. No doubt it would have provided reliable results.
Come on, D-dub. Bobo lets anyone post there. As long as the poster agrees with him. (It also helps to have the ridiculous opinion that he is the funniest writer of our time.)
Well, this has certainly flushed out the expected parties. Most of the posts above this one make an asinine point, to which the easy response is: it is a pretty good way to find out if one is paranoid, to ask if others share the same perception. Too easy Drill Seargent too easy.
it is a pretty good way to find out if one is paranoid, to ask if others share the same perception. Perceptions and paranoia are two different things.We can share different perceptions of how the market operates and what the level of corruption is without either of us being paranoid.Paranoia would more likely be associated with thoughts of needing to flush people out on a MF board.
Sorry, were you saying something about a closed circle of corruption? It's a pretty crappy way to figure it out if you ask a population the majority of which is inclined to agree with everything you say just because you're their hero.
Paranoia would more likely be associated with thoughts of needing to flush people out on a MF board.Rubbish.The Fool is deleting posts right and left that do not violate the rules. The majority of people who post here regularly are the "Byrne's a nut, Byrne's a nut" crowd. I would say the burden of proof is on you.~ ladysnow
PBI've been I am shareholder and advocate of your work.I agree with you that the way the media and journalist were acting(before this recent interest from the media) were kind of suspicious and i am guilty of buying into the story. I believe that theres is something wrong with the system and i applaud you for shedding light on it to others. I am usually a good judge of character. But in recent times i have found myself at a fork in the road.I believe that seth is not currupt maybe a little over anxious to expose companies he believes to be fradulant. I was dial tone away from requesting my shares from my broker just to see the outcome so i can report it back here as my contribution to the cause, but in recent the same gut feeling i had towards this whole nss business and ftd are beginning to lean towards the other way.For some reason you making red flags go up in my sensors and i dont know if its the way you are quick to accuse people of working for the dark side(my words. I don't know pat but something is really starting to seem odd about how you are carrying out business.Not to say you may have your reasons why you act this way, but things are just starting to seem funny about this situation. If at the end you are correct about these people i will not hesitate to apologize to you.BWThanks for leeting me get this off my chest.
I would say the burden of proof is on you.More logic: prove you're not corrupt.
The Fool is deleting posts right and left that do not violate the rules.Can you provide a selection of these posts, say 5, that were deleted right and left but didn't violate the rules?The majority of people who post here regularly are the "Byrne's a nut, Byrne's a nut" crowd.Patrick did not limit his poll to people who post here regularly. However, just as a sanity check would you provide a list of all the people you believe post here regularly and categorize them by whether or not they are members of what you call the "Byrne's a nut, Byrne's a nut" crowd or not?I would say the burden of proof is on you.The burden of proof is typically placed on the person making a claim. If I have made a claim that you feel I need to prove then ask away. I haven't noticed any of my posts being deleted but then again I probably wouldn't have noticed as I wouldn't particularly care.
Buffettswisdom,I can understand where you are coming from. I am sure I do not seem my jovial lighthearted self these days.I have seen this now for several years: there is something terribly corrupt going on in our markets. I do not know exactly where it ends. but I look at the totality of Seth's stuff, and UR, and I find them so unreasonable that I cannot believe they are not on the take. (ET - I am not sure. Sometimes we communicate privately and he seems nice enoughy.) I have become paranoid: it does not mean I am wrong. I ahve a reporter friend who was threatened not long ago for sticking his nose in this stuff.I forgot one last big treat: there is a massive class-action suit about to be filed next week. Neither I nor Overstock are part of it. Wait until you see whom it is against.
Patrick, I couldn't find an answer on your poll that I agree with...I don't agree with the pulling of your post...I don't agree with how they selectively leave only the posts they like...It reminds me of gradeschool kickball when the kid who owned the ball could set the rules, and take his ball away if his team was losing. On the other hand, I don't think they are 'corrupted'.Am a big supporter of this fight you are engaged in, but please keep your pistol aimed in the right direction.
Amazing. I am chided for my paranoia.But as I write this, 52% think this place has been corrupted as well. Are over half of Fools paranoid?What do you bet the response is to delete all these posts?
Welcome back Patrick.Amazing. I am chided for my paranoia.You asked if you were paranoid.But as I write this, 52% think this place has been corrupted as well. Are over half of Fools paranoid?Perhaps you misread the poll, 8 people voted for the Fool being corrupt, that is 35% of the people who voted. You added in 4 more votes for another poll choice which didn't mention the word corrupted at all.No, it's not likely that 1/2 the Fools are paranoid, unless you believe the Motley Fool consists of 16 or fewer people.What do you bet the response is to delete all these posts?Throw a more personal attack into the next poll and they will be more likely to martyr you.
Patrick,I have generally watched this debate from afar, but I have been an OSTK shareholder for two and a half years now, and I would have to say that I'm finding it harder to agree with you these days, especially when you go after people like UR that have been valuable contributors to this community for years. In my mind, it takes a long time to build up a level of credibility, so over time, you come to value and respect the opinions of various people on these boards and in general. As of now, my tiers of respect for various players in this debate go something like this:Tier 1 (Very High Credibility):Bill MannGoodHindSiteTier 2 (High Credibility):Yourself (Hannibal100)UsuallyReasonablTier 3 (Generally Credible):Seth JaysonTier 4 (Little or No Opinion):CBOLOCvexas1HomerBuffleKillTMSeurotrash01Tier 5 (Not Credible):ladysnowbloodSo among the 5 or so people that I value the opionion of on this board, there are obviously some distinctly varied opinions on a large number of issues. I think thats a good thing, and just re-emphasizes that we live in a shades of grey world.With that being said, I think you are out of line attacking Seth and UR, and I'll disagree with Seth's statement, and say that I am glad that the mods took down your poll. These message boards have always resolved around civil discourse, thats why they are worth paying to use (as opposed to say the Yahoo! boards).Thats my take.-DejSpin
As usual I can see both sides here.I don't think UR is corrupted. I think he's hard-nosed and tough about issues. It would be inconsistent if he wasn't that way here. He's inclined not to believe in the cause and I think it'd be hard to change his mind. ET, well he's just a rabble-rouser and also not inclined to believe.Patrick, I don't think you're paranoid.I think Patrick's seen and experienced REAL stuff and if we traded places with him it would be plain to us that what he believes is sensible. Most of us are lucky enough we don't have creeps crawling around us doing stuff. As for hedge funds, stock analysts, and certain journalists I suspect on Wall Street around the water cooler people would be saying that the allegations about them are probably true. Patrick could say 10 things, 3 of which could be totally wrong but I don't think we should dismiss the remaining 7 things that are totally right (sorry if I have the ratio wrong).As for this discussion board, hmmmm, there are people here who do seem to be affiliated with something. It's not paranoia to think that. TMF has all the credit card records of people who post here and also people who read the board. It would be interesting to see who passes through here. If there isn't much traffic then we're just talking to ourselves here so there wouldn't be any purpose in affiliated people being here. If there were paid people here what would be so surprising about that? On Yahoo's OSTK board there does appear to be several paid bashers. What would be the point of that? But yet those guys are there.As for Seth, he's probably a straight-shooter but it would be nice of him to answer the 7 innocuous questions :)I mean you never know. There was a guy who wrote for Cnet who's favorite piece was a negative story on eBay. If there was any glitch or any morsel of negativism about eBay he would do a story about it. It was kind of odd how fixated he was on the negativism. I don't know if it means anything but he now writes for TheStreet.com.
Patrick,I feel the Fool has been corrupted but not in the way you think.A really big story rode into Fooldom when you started posting here.I suspect it's all been very good for their business (and site traffic) and that this isprobably one of the more widely-read boards on the site. Pulling your post (and others) is a really bad business decisionthat "corrupts" the Fool brand in my opinion.Heavy handed censorship will turn this place into a ghost townin a New York minute. We pay at the door because we want passionate,lively, intelligent discourse. If sometimes it gets rough, controversialand even newsworthy--all the better! I like reading your stuff because of the way you write. You're in the eyeof the hurricane and your observations are an interesting and important part of the story.Now, some tough love,babe. I think that having the Sanitycheck crowd constantlywhispering in your ear could make you 10% paranoid. I don't think the worldis as dark and dangerous as some of them see it. I think you need to be here just to get a different perspective and to have a forum.Seth seems to have a thing about certain high-profile CEO's. He hates Martha (the person) and made an obnoxious and ageist comment about Donald Trump--"moldy old New York moneybags like the Donald". My take on him is that he is very young amd not that interested in exploring the different sides of this issue. Citiblonde1
Tier 5 (Not Credible):ladysnowbloodHahaha... Taken from you, that's a badge of honor.CNBC just said David Maris has been removed from coverage of Biovail by CSFB. Charlie Gasparino is going to discuss at 7:30am. Check it out, if you believe me..~ ladysnow
I suspect UsuallyReasonable is also co-opted, and has been assigned the task of trying to win non-official Fools to his side as "just another interested poster."This is my final post on this board; I grow tired of the silliness, and gain nothing from it.The above quoted remark by Patrick Byrne is the single most idiotic thing I have ever heard said by the CEO of an allegedly major corporation. Since I am the only person in a position to comment authoritatively on your statement, Byrne, I will do so now -- you are completely, utterly wrong, and a fool into the bargain for making such a remark. Further, you are a coward for attacking me by making false accusations about my motivations rather than meeting my arguments with arguments. You came here with your Yahoo message board attitude and never quite managed to leave it behind. When met with un-Yahoo-like, intelligent responses that questioned your unsupported claims, you fell back on calling names and making unfounded accusations. That has been plain for all to see.It is a shame that I am posting anonymously so that I cannot sue you for libel, a case which I would not only win easily, but would greatly enjoy. I would not be surprised to learn that Seth Jayson is considering such an action for the severe damage you have inflicted upon his reputation with your scurrilous, unproven, and mendacious accusations against him, although I must of course hope that he sues you personally rather than suing our company, as I have no interest in paying, even indirectly, for your misdeeds.Perhaps somewhere in the recesses of your fantasy-addled brain you can imagine that if I were not in fact "co-opted", knowing that to be the case I would be in the perfect position to see just how willing you are to make outrageous and untrue statements about things regarding which you know nothing.It is astonishing to me that the board of directors of our company allows you to continue in any executive capacity whatsoever, considering your repeatedly demonstrated inability to separate fact from fantasy.I speak now to the shareholders present, and to our former fellow poster Dr. Burry of Scion Capital, which owns approximately 8% of Overstock.com. I see from the company's filings that Overstock's board of directors can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org, and that communications from shareholders to that address will be forwarded to the board. I call upon concerned shareholders to write to the board and express their feelings about Patrick Byrne's irresponsible conduct. His accusations against Seth Jayson and others expose Overstock.com to liability from libel lawsuits that is totally unnecessary to the conduct of the company's business. His time-wasting excursion into market reform can only detract from the value of our investment in Overstock.com. These actions damage your investment, and it is the duty of the board of directors to take action.Despite the packed nature of the board, it may yet be possible to convince them to do their fiduciary duty and remove Byrne from his post before the damage to our company becomes irreversible. Jack Byrne has already made clear his displeasure with his son's behavior; possibly the remainder of the board has similar feelings, and would respond to feedback from shareholders. One can only hope.Ave atque vale.UsuallyReasonable
I have always considered the Fool and especially the Gardners and Bill Mann decent and honorable. However, I believe the deletion of posts has gotten out of hand, and reflects underlying bias at the Fool.com. I will lay out my thinking, then ask your opinion. Then how do you explain that they have been deleting MY posts too, Patrick?Unreal.Sj
Seth: Then how do you explain that they have been deleting MY posts too, Patrick?I'm not Patrick, but here's a possible explanation. It's for the same reason that TheScam.com published a couple of articles on NSS and how OSTK was undervalued, for camouflage and misdirection in a thinly veiled attempt to cover up the obvious bias.
I have always considered the Fool and especially the Gardners and Bill Mann decent and honorable. However, I believe the deletion of posts has gotten out of hand, and reflects underlying bias at the Fool.com. I will lay out my thinking, then ask your opinion.Patrick,If you have questions or seek more information on why a post was pulled, you need only ask me. You have done that in the past, but now apparently prefer to ask questions of those who do not have the answers, for reasons unknown.We have a low tolerance for incivility and personal attacks here. In fact, you lauded us for it when you arrived. Now, it seems you wish an unmoderated forum free from any intervention at all. What changed?Are the Gardners and Bill Mann no longer honorable because of our boards moderation? That's what you are implying, and I take greater offense at that than if you had called me dishonorable. I'll tell you without reservation that in my nine years tenure here in charge of enforcing our Terms of Service, I've never been asked or told to remove a post because of a position contained within, or to promote or harm a particular position by doing so. Anyone may request a post be removed for violation of our rules, but I'm not coerced or pressured by anyone in a superior position when I consider what should be removed, and I'm always fully prepared to walk into a court of law and say so. Thus far, nobody has made that necessary.If you want to point the finger at somebody, point it at me. I have no dog in this fight; the success or failure of Overstock or your other endeavors may be interesting at times, but of no consequence to me. My only motives are to continue to facilitate a forum of value to individual investors, no matter what side they are on.Richard
But as I write this, 52% think this place has been corrupted as well. Are over half of Fools paranoid?I don't know about over half (of the dozen or so who responded), but I assure you that LSB is indeed paranoid.
Richard,If you would like I will submit the five or six posts of mine that were deleted for alleged "incivility" to the board for a poll. I asked numerous times of the Fool police what was uncivil in the posts and received no answer.Furthermore when it became apparent the posts being deleted were addressed to UR or ET I felt somewhat slighted. These posters had likened me to a troll, an idiot, a terrorist etc. So, looking for even handed treatment I provided those posts to MF for deletion on the same basis however they were still on the boards days later.The question is why? I have repeatedly asked for an even hand but can not get a response from MF. Define incivility in MF terms because if calling a rant "juvenile" is uncivil while calling someone a "troll, idiot, terrorist" is civil then the MF needs to update their definition of civil.OLOC
OLOC,Please send me links to the posts you cite, and I'll certainly respond. We can't read everything that's posted, so we do depend on problem posts being reported to us. Sometimes, members of one side of a position will be doing all the reporting, so our administration seems lopsided or biased at times. That's not the case, however. It's possible to debate and defend with spirit and gusto, but civilly. That's all we ask.Richard
This is my final post on this board; I grow tired of the silliness, and gain nothing from it.You created the silliness with your constant drumbeat of "sell more toasters". You could have only said it once or twice and made your point but 300 times made it silly and deranged. I will miss your smug posts.OLOC
Please send me links to the posts you cite, and I'll certainly respond. We can't read everything that's posted, so we do depend on problem posts being reported to us. Sometimes, members of one side of a position will be doing all the reporting, so our administration seems lopsided or biased at times. That's not the case, however. It's possible to debate and defend with spirit and gusto, but civilly. That's all we ask.RichardThank you sir. I will resend my emails. Quite frankly i think some on the board became overly sensitive. I would not have wasted MF's time requesting deletion unless the uneven treatment wasn't so apparent. Some of the battles on this board have been so educational and enlightening that it would be sad to see deletions mute the passions on both sides. It should only be done in rare blatent occasions. JMHO.Thanks againOLOC
Richard -Like you, I have no stake or dog in this fight. I have been on both ends of brisk and frank discussion for the 3 years I have been happily participating and reading TMF.Most important here is: Perception is everything. Reputation is the most easily damaged commodity, so anything you and the rest of TMF management can do to prevent the appearance of bias in TMF censorship is mandatory.That there is even a hint of distrust of TMF as shown at the top of this thread (http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=23910403&sort=whole#23910905) should be of very great concern to all. TMF should address this and figure out a new way to supress incivility. Perhaps more openness in specific deletions would work. For example, in each instance, flag the reason for any deletion and leave an open trail of it in the thread, deleting the offensive phrase but leaving whatever is left along with a TMF remark.This post should probably be duplicated and discussed in a more general forum, but since it seems to be hot here ...Phil
Most important here is: Perception is everything. Reputation is the most easily damaged commodity, so anything you and the rest of TMF management can do to prevent the appearance of bias in TMF censorship is mandatory.Phil,From time to time, our credibility comes up when someone's ox is being gored, or not gored and somebody thinks it should be. When a post is removed, an automatic email is sent to the poster, usually with a reason for the deletion. We don't have the ability to edit posts and leave them in place, nor should we. Whatever the poster said is there, and it all belongs to the poster. Leaving an explanation in place for removed posts, or inserting in live posts, sometimes would cause a privacy issue.We also permanently archive the boards, even removed posts. Everything ever posted here is available for competent courts and subpoenas.Richard
I believe Seth Jayson is "bent" and has an agenda (I do not know whether his shilling is from bribery or some other mechanism). I suspect UsuallyReasonable is also co-opted, and has been assigned the task of trying to win non-official Fools to his side as "just another interested poster." I wonder about Eurotrash: occasionally he seems reasonable, but often it feels like his shtick is to play the, "Oh I'm really on your side, but just quibble quibble quibble" game. Are you ok? This is a pretty paranoid thing to say about people you don't even know. I've followed these quys posts for years. UR and I agree on about nothing, but despite the fact that I think he is frequently misguided I know that he is misguided with integrity. As for Euro, the guy knows his stuff. Perhaps a bit too well for your comfort given how far out your neck is extended on the chopping block. UR is right about one thing, for the CEO of a company you are spending WAY too much time swatting bugs and not enough time figuring out how to SELL MORE TOASTERS! Shorts aren't your problem. More basic issues like "revenues", "growth", "margins", and, most importantly, "free cash flow" are the issues you should be concerned with. If changing the world is your goal, run for president and make reforming the SEC your platform. Otherwise, I think you should stick to the fundamentals of running a business. Your behavior reminds me of many of the paranoid schizophrenics I've run across in my years of public service, and while I respect the struggle these people engage in each day of their lives, I also recognize when they are losing control of their illness. They tend to fall into a kind of obsessive focus on delusions of conspiracy all around them and let those delusions slowly control their lives. I typically experience it as a dramatic increase in email messages asking me about my opinions about things they've read on obscure political or religious blogs. Most are not in the position to lead thousands with them into their nightmare quest for truth, justice and the American way (or whatever "way" their culture offers), usually it is just their family and friends that are dragged down with them. When I do encounter people in such a circumstance I say to them "your health is the most important thing right now, you need to get control of your health. Once you do regain control only then can you return to living your normal daily life". There are no shills posting on this board, just critics (and smart ones at that). There are legitimate questions to be raised about the practice of shorting, indeed their may even be unethical and criminal behavior on the part of shorts (just as their are with longs who manipulate penny stocks). It's part of the nature of society that social deviance exists in every social relationship. What there is not, however, is a conspiracy. As an outside observer I beg you to listen to me very carefully, where you see conspiracy I see paranoia. Take care of yourself, you owe it to yourself and your family. Take care of your business, you owe it to your shareholders.Best of Health,PP
There are no shills posting on this board, just critics (and smart ones at that). I'm impressed that you can be so confident that this board is a serene island of fairness and lack of guile, in stark contrast to, say, the yahoo OSTK chat group. I suppose whatever (whoever?) motivates those guys and gals to post 100s of vituperative rants daily against Pat has no extension here. Apparently, the participants on this board are only elite investors with a conscience, stock sages who would never deign to sully themselves by posting disingenuously for sordid motives. Yep, people here sure are smart; and Patrick is definitely paranoid. . .
You tell him, Gnomon. Doesn't he know that critics = shills in the world of Patrick Byrne?
Thanks Twitty, this place is so surreal.
Dude, Reverend Jones may be imploring you to draw deeply from the cup, but this ain't Guyana and you have somewhere else to turn. Just say no.
dwanthem has always had an agenda. Not sure what or who is behind him. squnits seems to have many aliases, recommends, his own posts, and is probably a former basher that was discredited and is now posting under another screen name. The kind of one line negative quiper more suited to the yahoo message board than here imo. I don't see anything he has added to my understanding of ostk or stock manipulation/naked shorting, although he posts 50 times a day. A good candidate for the ignore button. UR had an undisclosed conflict of interest in that he wanted you to stop pursuing the stock manipulation and sell more toasters, but I don't think he was paid to do it. Patrick, you were right. As soon as you posted the "usual suspects" on this board jumped right in to call you paranoid and discredit you. They don't seem to want to let the facts get in their way, that there has been stock manipulation by hedge funds that have used lazy financial journalists and for hire research companies.
David,A few points:1. I'll accept the assessment that I have added nothing to the collective understanding of OSTK and stock manipulation/naked shorting/(crop circles?); so, I have added as much as you have, though in a more concise, less santimonious and more entertaining manner.2. The facts, even the assumed ones, don't add up yet to what Patrick claims they add up to. Just pretend I'm from Missouri; you gotta show me.3. By all means, ignore me. I'm not talking to you anyway. You're just the straight man.
I suspect UsuallyReasonable is also co-opted, and has been assigned the task of trying to win non-official Fools to his side as "just another interested poster."As someone who has absolutely no financial interest in this drama and has just spent some idle time looking at this soap opera for the train-wreck value, I suspect you are into this whole crusade so far that you are functionally bat<you-know-what> crazy when it comes to it.Just for a moment, step outside the situation and have a look at it. If you still have to squint, hold the prism up to the light just so and angle it to the side of your head to come out with the answers you have, then you should admit to yourself that you have taken things way too far.But please, keep going! It's pretty fascinating stuff.
Patrick,If you have questions or seek more information on why a post was pulled, you need only ask me. You have done that in the past, but now apparently prefer to ask questions of those who do not have the answers, for reasons unknown.I'm a "Patrick" too, and whenever I ask you why you pulled one of my posts, I get either no reply or an unsatisfactory answer.And then there was the time recently that you suspended my account for a week for using the letter "F". Yes. The letter "F". That's it. When I asked why you gave me a very weak response. What do you have to say for that?
You're Seth's brother, right?Citiblonde1
When I asked why you gave me a very weak response. What do you have to say for that?If I gave you the stronger response, I'd have to fire myself. You know the rules, and you don't appreciate being forced to abide by them. What else is there for me to say? Nobody is holding you hostage here.Richard
On the subject of paranoia, and Fool journalism:Are the supposedly "rational and knowledgeable" members of this community (Jayson, Mann, Eurotrash and UR) aware of the dimensions of the battle that Byrne is fighting? I guarantee that Mann and Jayson are either bent, or amazingly ignorant of one of the biggest stories in finance that they will ever be involved with.What Byrne is fighting is financial fraud on a massive scale; Overstock is but one small example. Biovail may be another small example of it; I'm not too well informed there. These two companies are at most 1 % of the history of naked short selling. We have thousands of bulletin board companies destroyed by shorting their stocks to zero at huge profits to the short sellers. Granted, many of these companies were pump and dumps that deserved to be destroyed. Nevertheless, what is basically an illegal tactic was used to destroy them, and if strict tort logic were followed, there would be $1 trillion liability here. Also, some of the victims probably deserved to live.Bigger than the pink sheets, we have small to mid caps that have been targeted by short and distort. OSTK, TASR, NFI, ALD, ACAS and many others are among this group. Again, some of the victims positively deserved the exposure, some did not. To the extent that illegal tactics were used, there's another large liability here.And I am guessing here, but I personally believe that every company that gets close to BK is naked shorted to some extent, with huge rewards to the criminals (free money). Delta, GM (?), telecom, dotcom, ENE etc. This can be like stealing from or murdering a criminal: vigilante justice or "two wrongs not making a right". Not to mention "death spirals", where even our deaf, dumb and blind SEC has caught a few of the naked shorters. Part of the short and distort methodology involves media. The OTSK lawsuit is the tip of the iceberg. The exact same mechanisms, and many of the same individuals, have been used time after time, on company after company.In the world of journalism, the following history is available to be researched:Cramer, Cramer's wife and Rocker worked for Steinhardt. Greenberg, Eisinger, Dave Kansas (on BOD of TSCM) worked for Cramer.Kansas became editor of Section C of WSJ. Short hedge funds became major source of news coverage in Dow Jones and TSCM. Cheryl Einhorn was an editor of Barrons and wife of the head of short hedge fund (Greenlight). Again, we need honest coverage of companies, but when the coverage is dishonest or ignorant, it encourages pump and dumps and short and distorts.Foster Winans went to jail for receiving money to let brokers front run his articles in the Wall Street Journal. But there are other ways to compensate journalists. The promise of future jobs from an $8 B hedge fund would be motivating. In the case of journalists without much talent, one can get an agenda out by just feeding info to meet the next publishing deadline. Or hedge funds could subscribe to journalist's newsletters or other paid services.We have hedge funds controlling 10s of billions of dollars, we have a largely captive or ignorant media, we even have the ex-head of Market Regulation (and now commissioner) of the SEC captured by the miscreants, and powerful Senators doing inexplicable things (Shelby).If Jesse Eisinger, Greenberg, Cramer, Becky Quick, Dave Kansas, Cheryl Einhorn and many more can be captured so completely through ignorance and/or corruption, I don't think Mann nor Jayson can be beyond suspicion.And I do believe those are the alternate possibilities: grand ignorance or corrupt motivation.
squintsp341. I'll accept the assessment that I have added nothing to the collective understanding of OSTK and stock manipulation/naked shorting/(crop circles?); so, I have added as much as you have, though in a more concise, less santimonious and more entertaining manner.Well then we're all agreed you add nothing to this board. I have made posts on real topics, with real analysis, information, and opinions, although I admit not in my interactions with you. You really think you are entertaining? And you think Patrick is delusional? 2. The facts, even the assumed ones, don't add up yet to what Patrick claims they add up to. Just pretend I'm from Missouri; you gotta show me.The facts are just starting to come out. Piece by piece. You think there isn't corruption in the stock market? You think hedge funds wouldn't buy journalists and "research" companies if they thought they could profit from it and get away with it? Are you that naive or maybe you are just directly part of the problem? I have been on this board for a long time, you just came on? Where did you come from and why? Do you know dwanthem personally, or work with him? By all means, ignore me. I'm not talking to you anyway. You're just the straight man. Cmon. You really think you are funny? Don't quit your day job.
If Jesse Eisinger, Greenberg, Cramer, Becky Quick, Dave Kansas, Cheryl Einhorn and many more can be captured so completely through ignorance and/or corruption, I don't think Mann nor Jayson can be beyond suspicion.I suggest you review the following article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy
Do you know dwanthem personally, or work with him? It just never stops does it?You could be told a hundred times that I don't have any associations with Wall Street, hedge funds, shorts, brokerages, journalists or anyone on this board and you'll just keep repeating the same wrong accusations.You're wrong about me David. So is Patrick. I'm an investor in Overstock, I want to see Overstock succeed. I'm also interested in the truth, not allegations, not smears, not witch burning.
I suggest you review the following article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthyI think these articles are more like it:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Milkenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_BoeskyTMS
David,Well then we're all agreed you add nothing to this board. I have made posts on real topics, with real analysis, information, and opinions, although I admit not in my interactions with you.If what I've seen here is any indication, your ideas about real analysis and information need some work. You really think you are entertaining? Not necessarily in absolute terms, but relative to you, yes. You think there isn't corruption in the stock market? You think hedge funds wouldn't buy journalists and "research" companies if they thought they could profit from it and get away with it? Are you that naive or maybe you are just directly part of the problem? Two things:1. My request for proof is not inconsistent with belief that there is corruption in the markets. Put another way, I can be consistent believing that there is corruption in the markets and requiring that you (or Pat) prove it.2. I always enjoy how you (and Pat) define the issue in such a way as to paint anyone who expresses doubt about what you consider "proof" is corrupt, co-opted or some other such nonsense. It's convenient, but utterly unhelpful. And by that I mean it contains no "real analysis" or "information".I have been on this board for a long time, you just came on? Where did you come from and why? I'm here to watch the sideshow. And to add to it when I feel like it. And to point out the ridiculousness of many of your statements. It's an easy job, so sometimes dull. But I'm easily amused.Do you know dwanthem personally, or work with him? No and no.Cmon. You really think you are funny? Don't quit your day job.See above.
TMS,There really were Communists. There were even some bad Communists. Some people, such as Joseph McCarthy, were unable to act reasonably and rationally on that information.There really are bad people on Wall Street. There are even some bad journalists.Some people are unable to act reasonably and rationally on that information.The world becomes a less pleasant place when people are looking in the rose bushes for Communists or naked short sellers.
It just never stops does it?You could be told a hundred times that I don't have any associations with Wall Street, hedge funds, shorts, brokerages, journalists or anyone on this board and you'll just keep repeating the same wrong accusations.Kinda frustrating isn't it. Sort of like when Gasparino said he had heard from an "SEC Source" that they were seriously looking into Gradient violating 17B and you were demanding names and accusing me of getting my information from a blog.Or when I followed up Patrick's comments on Cramer conveniently withholding his subpoena from the public and proceeds to sell shares in TSCM (as did other executives) and labelling them as "planned sales" AFTER receiving the subpoena but BEFORE revealing them to the public. Nope, nothing fishy here. As someone noted, had Patrick done this, I doubt the TMF servers could have handled the "witch hunt" (remember when his news wasn't delivered 24hrs later)?Anyways, glass houses, stones and such. All amusingly accurate.TMS
You could be told a hundred times that I don't have any associations with Wall Street, hedge funds, shorts, brokerages, journalists or anyone on this board and you'll just keep repeating the same wrong accusations.How about Law Firms?OLOC
You're Seth's brother, right?Yeah, he is. I warned him not to read this board, because I figured someone with whom I shared a womb, let alone decades of life, would probably not be able to restrain himself on seeing the kind of baseless accusations being flung my way by Patrick.Whatcha gonna do...Sj
OLOC,How about Law Firms?What about law firms, do I work for one? No.
Perhaps... the posts and profiles'll help you out with this question.
If I gave you the stronger response, I'd have to fire myself. You know the rules, and you don't appreciate being forced to abide by them. What else is there for me to say? Nobody is holding you hostage here.Show me the section in the Fools' rules that says that the letter "F" is cause for deletion of post and a 1 week suspension. Otherwise, I call "B" and "S" (are those letters against the rules too?)
Show me the section in the Fools' rules that says that the letter "F" is cause for deletion of post and a 1 week suspension. Otherwise, I call "B" and "S" (are those letters against the rules too?)http://www.fool.com/help/index.htm?display=community03Post or transmit any content that is disruptive, uncivil, abusive, vulgar, profane, obscene, hateful, fraudulent, threatening, harassing, defamatory, or which discloses private or personal matters concerning any person;
http://www.fool.com/help/index.htm?display=community03Post or transmit any content that is disruptive, uncivil, abusive, vulgar, profane, obscene, hateful, fraudulent, threatening, harassing, defamatory, or which discloses private or personal matters concerning any person; Thanks for a perfect example of a weak answer.Once again, I ask, show me the section in the Fools' rules that says that the letter "F" is cause for deletion of post and a 1 week suspension. Otherwise, I call "B" and "S" (are those letters against the rules too?)
Once again, I ask, show me the section in the Fools' rules that says that the letter "F" is cause for deletion of post and a 1 week suspension.From your pit bull-like obsession with this, I have to assume you combined it with a "you". I'm confident your whining has been noted.
Show me the section in the Fools' rules that says that the letter "F" is cause for deletion of post and a 1 week suspension. Otherwise, I call "B" and "S" (are those letters against the rules too?)Kestral, You were around and followed BernardSamson too long.Now you're sounding like him just before he was banished from TMF permanently.
Kestral,If you wish to continue to argue the point, let's go to the Censorship board. This isn't about Overstock.Richard
Byrne said:Amazing. I am chided for my paranoia.But as I write this, 52% think this place has been corrupted as well. Are over half of Fools paranoid?What do you bet the response is to delete all these posts?You lost that bet, Byrne.UsuallyReasonable
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |