Seeing A Bigger Picture, What you have been deconstructing at Wikipedia Review... Options

[Patrick Byrne]

Congratulations on the great progress you have made defrocking some high clergy of Wikipedia since I last visited.

Full disclosure: My name is Patrick Byrne. I work at Overstock.com, which for about one year has employed a former journalist named Judd Bagley to oversee the creation of our car tab and a Wiki called "Omuse," handle relations with the press, and design a new tab (in the works). Long before Judd joined our company, and as a hobby since, he was analyzing techniques employed by a small group of people to hijack social media. Using the handle "Wordbomb" he posted the results of his analysis on this site and on a site he created called "antisocialmedia.net" (for the record, he did not tell me about antisocialmedia.net before he did it, nor for some time after its creation would he confirm that it was he who was behind it). In your admirable endeavors to unscramble what is going on behind the scenes at Wikipedia, Judd/Wordbomb has done his share of work. By a strange coincidence (?), one of the people whose pefidy this community has uncloaked, Slim Virgin, turned out to be a woman from my own past, and I posted elsewhere on this site such information as I thought might be helpful to you (which Mr. Brandt seemed to appreciate). I say this all in full disclosure because the financial press labors to find any incompleteness in my posts on the Internet, apparently finding something unholy in my exercise of first amendment rights without availing myself of (or recognizing the need for) their services.

Now to my point: Nothing is more irritating, I know, than to have someone suggest to you that your own cause is really part of a bigger struggle. One always suspects an attempt to divert one's energies into whichever other cause that speaker favors. So I insist that I seek no diversion from your own current, noble, efforts, when I suggest to you that the threads you are pulling here lead deeply into the heart of a financial scandal that has been percolating into the headlines for six months, and may swamp any financial scandal of our lifetime.

On another message board within Overstock.com I have begun synthesizing information about that scandal, starting by creating one concise, cohesive overview post. Rather than gum up this board with information about that other financial scandal, I will give a link to that overview post: HOW THE SYSTEM REALLY WORKS: INTRO

After you have read that you will wonder if there is independent confirmation of what I wrote there. There is a great deal, and organizing it will be the subject of my subsequent posts. In the meantime, however, consider taking 25 minutes to watch a Bloomberg Special Report, "Phantom Shares". Bloomberg has the most "elite" viewership of any news organization in the world (which may count against it in the eyes of some radicals, I know). Consider what it means when a news service at the pinnacle of the Establishment reports that our capitalist model is powered by a reactor that almost no one has heard of, and that this reactor that has a crack in it (and why it is that only such an elite news service could run that story).

Given my earlier involvement on the Slim Virgin issue, I hope that Daniel Brandt and you will forgive what may seem like a commercial interruption. I simply wish you to understand how what your are confronting here really is part of a larger puzzle, so that you may know the stakes riding on your efforts.

Warm regards,
Patrick M. Byrne
CEO, Overstock.com

[Pwok]

Oh, please, Mr. Byrne!

You don't know me and you're not going to meet me, so you can believe this or not: You just happened to have run into someone who is completely disinterested in your company or your stock, but who has been around the block 10 or 20 thousand times. And from what I've been gleaning in my limited research in what's now about a half-hour, Overstock has been playing all kinds of games with its books. It stands out like the sound of a senator's wingtips tapping on the floor in the bathroom stall next to me in the airport.

What's this "pro-forma EDITDA" crapola I read about in your Q2 conference call? Do you actually think that you can get away with that sort of thing these days? That people will believe it? Hubris knows no bounds, does it? What, and you're claiming an improvement of gross margin without disclosing how much of it came from sales of stuff that you'd written down in prior quarters? What a bunch of smarmy, sleazy crap. I just hated it when managements would pull that kind of shit on me. It wasn't just dishonest, it was insulting. They actually thought we wouldn't see it.

Oh, and don't tell me about GAAP. I know all about GAAP. I still tell people about an accounting class I took in business school. So, we walk in on the first day and the professor hands us a sheet of paper with a bunch of facts printed on it. He tells us that the heat's on, and that our personal options might be riding on the quarterly numbers. He says he wants two numbers: What the company made, and what we'd report. The class average was that the company made 48 cents, and that we'd report 52 cents. "This class is all about where to find that 4 cents," the professor said.

And believe me, Mr. Byrne, I've found a lot more than 4 cents in my time. Christ, I scoped out the (first) AOL accounting fraud three years before the SEC busted them for it. If I were emporer, the AOL people and their auditors would be in jail, and guys like you would be looking over their shoulders very nervously when contemplating any sort of snake dance with their numbers. If there's one thing that white collar people fear, it's jail. Money can always be replaced, but you can't replace what you lose when you go to prison.

In the classroom example, both numbers were GAAP. You can drive a semitruck through GAAP, but apparently that's not even enough for you now. Mr. Byrne, when I look in the mirror every morning the face I see staring back at me is not that of someone who's mother raised a fool. Sheesh, how stupid do you think I am? Your game is sooooooooooo Utah. What are you thinking now, that the best defense is a good offense? Look, I don't trust Wikipedia farther than I can throw it, but my beef with them is completely unrelated to your crusade, that's for sure. You know who I really feel for? The sucker of a fund manager who bought a big slug of your stock and has to sit there at 2 in the morning and worry about it.

This post has been edited by Pwok: Sat 1st September 2007, 11:29pm

[Patrick Byrne]

Somey,

Cool, man. What a welcome change it is to be on a site where the foolishness has not yet reached critical mass, and everyone can see the deal.

Patrick

[Somey]

There's a deal?

I do try to keep an open mind, at least. Having said that, I have to agree with Gomi somewhat - for many of us, including myself, this whole thing is really about Martin Luther, not naked short selling. Nobody has really proven a distinct relationship between SlimVirgin and Gary Weiss, other than that Mantanmoreland/Weiss helped SV edit Nazi references into the Luther article. You wouldn't think that would be enough to lead her to defend him to such an extent, but I guess that's where you come in.

Either way, the naked shorting seems like just one aspect of the picture, not the Big Picture itself... (I'm not saying I can't be persuaded, though!)

And Pwok seemed like just a regular guy, until today, anyway. In fact, he's been practically exemplary.

And what's a guy going by the name "Unrepentant Vandal" doing in the stock-trading game? Somehow I just can't see a guy in an Armani suit sitting down and deliberately posting misinformation to WP, not to mention going on a blanking spree. The world just gets weirder by the minute.

Oh, and by all means, tell the Juddster that Pwok's IP has never changed, it's not a proxy, and it doesn't match any of the Weiss ranges or addresses we've encountered here. He may well have a special enmity for Utah-based CEO's, but Gary Weiss he's not!

[tarantino]

Oh, and by all means, tell the Juddster that Pwok's IP has never changed, it's not a proxy, and it doesn't match any of the Weiss ranges or addresses we've encountered here. He may well have a special enmity for Utah-based CEO's, but Gary Weiss he's not!

Am I the only one who finds Somey's continued use of admin tools to post checkuser results on dissident voices disturbing?

[Daniel Brandt]

Am I the only one who finds Somey's continued use of admin tools to post checkuser results on dissident voices disturbing?

Yes, I find it disturbing that he doesn't do it a lot more often. If I was running this board, all admins would be using their real names instead of screen names, and every single post, from admins and lesser mortals alike, would have the IP address from where it was posted displayed in the corner of the post itself.

The signal-to-noise ratio would improve significantly if this were the case.

[tarantino]

Am I the only one who finds Somey's continued use of admin tools to post checkuser results on dissident voices disturbing?

Yes, I find it disturbing that he doesn't do it a lot more often. If I was running this board, all admins would be using their real names instead of screen names, and every single post, from admins and lesser mortals alike, would have the IP address from where it was posted displayed in the corner of the post itself.

The signal-to-noise ratio would improve significantly if this were the case.

(my bold)

Yes, that's a good idea. Publicly, it should be all the time, or never.

[gomi]

Am I the only one who finds Somey's continued use of admin tools to post checkuser results on dissident voices disturbing?

....
Yes, that's a good idea. Publicly, it should be all the time, or never.

You are suggesting that Somey told us who Pwok is. He did not. He told us, in a very limited way, who he is probably not. Far from the same thing. Other than the fact that he knows Pwok's IP address and you do not, I can't see what is disturbing.

I'm certainly not saying you have to like him or anything like that, but please, try to sound a bit less accusatory

Okay, I'll try. To be fair, CEO Byrne is reaping the whirlwind from me after so many years of my dealing with some of the most elegant white trash this country has to offer, its corporate elite.

Also, do try to remember that this is Wikipedia Review, not Overstock.com Review or Patrick Byrne Review. Members here have diverse political and social views. You are entitled to your opinion, as is Mr. Byrne, but this forum is not infinitely available to express them except as they bear on Wikipedia.

[Pwok]

Also, do try to remember that this is Wikipedia Review, not Overstock.com Review or Patrick Byrne Review. Members here have diverse political and social views. You are entitled to your opinion, as is Mr. Byrne, but this forum is not infinitely available to express them except as they bear on Wikipedia.

Whoa there, cowboy! Check the history of this thread. I am not the one who brought up Overstock.com and its situation. I merely reacted when that company's CEO posted here about it, and unlike a lot of people who discuss business and finance I actually have the background to do it reasonably intelligently. I don't blame you if you don't want Overstock and naked shorting discussed here, but I am not the one to complain to about that. Go check how many threads I've started that had nothing to do with Wikipedia. I think you will find the number to be zero.

You are suggesting that Somey told us who Pwok is. He did not. He told us, in a very limited way, who he is probably not. Far from the same thing. Other than the fact that he knows Pwok's IP address and you do not, I can't see what is disturbing.

Not that I especially care, but I'd note that this happened only when I harshly criticized someone who the administrator likes. So, yeah, I can see why some eyebrows went up.

This post has been edited by Pwok: Sun 2nd September 2007, 6:09pm

[Somey]

Yeah, what he said!

Not that I especially care, but I'd note that this happened only when I harshly criticized someone who the administrator likes. So, yeah, I can see why some eyebrows went up.

Well, you're new here... so it might be best if I explain a few things...

Gary Weiss has at least two, and possibly four, accounts here, none of which are suspended or banned. So, any time someone criticizes Overstock or Patrick, Wordbomb (aka Judd B.) assumes that the critic is one of three people, most likely Weiss himself. As the Wikipedia folks will tell you, Wordbomb has a long list of Weiss IP's, editing patterns, e-mail addresses, site-specific aliases, things like that. This is all considered "cyber-stalking" by the WP folks, but if you work for a company and some guy comes along and is that bound and determined to bring your company down, what are you going to do? Just sit there and watch it happen?

So, there have been a couple of instances in which Wordbomb has posted something publicly accusing a WR member of being Gary Weiss. That's not something we like to see, especially if it's unwarranted. This time I thought I'd head him off at the pass, so to speak - not leastwise because other people might have assumed the same thing, simply because of the fact that Gary Weiss exists.

Long story short, as long as ol' Gary is out there, almost anyone who criticizes Overstock will be suspected of being him. This is why Gary is such a nincompoop - he's so over the top about it that he's created a situation in which not only is he dismissible, but everyone who agrees with him is also in danger of getting the same reaction!

Pwok has posted some very good stuff on WR in the past few weeks, and he doesn't deserve that kind of suspicion, even if he did get a little nasty there... As long as he bears in mind the fact that Patrick is a member here too, and that we don't like to see members attacking other members (at least not publicly), then everything should be just fine.

[Pwok]

Well, you're new here... so it might be best if I explain a few things...

Gary Weiss has at least two, and possibly four, accounts here, none of which are suspended or banned. So, any time someone criticizes Overstock or Patrick, Wordbomb (aka Judd B.) assumes that the critic is one of three people, most likely Weiss himself. As the Wikipedia folks will tell you, Wordbomb has a long list of Weiss IP's, editing patterns, e-mail addresses, site-specific aliases, things like that. This is all considered "cyber-stalking" by the WP folks, but if you work for a company and some guy comes along and is that bound and determined to bring your company down, what are you going to do? Just sit there and watch it happen?

So, there have been a couple of instances in which Wordbomb has posted something publicly accusing a WR member of being Gary Weiss. That's not something we like to see, especially if it's unwarranted. This time I thought I'd head him off at the pass, so to speak - not leastwise because other people might have assumed the same thing, simply because of the fact that Gary Weiss exists.

Long story short, as long as ol' Gary is out there, almost anyone who criticizes Overstock will be suspected of being him. This is why Gary is such a nincompoop - he's so over the top about it that he's created a situation in which not only is he dismissible, but everyone who agrees with him is also in danger of getting the same reaction!

Pwok has posted some very good stuff on WR in the past few weeks, and he doesn't deserve that kind of suspicion, even if he did get a little nasty there... As long as he bears in mind the fact that Patrick is a member here too, and that we don't like to see members attacking other members (at least not publicly), then everything should be just fine.

Hey, I'm not upset. You've got a point about the member v. member stuff, and I think I've dialed it back a tad as it concerns CEO Bryne himself (as opposed to the issue he's flogging). As for the rest, I understand. I've got a little comment board attached to the site I created about that Matt Sanchez character whose biography on Wikipedia triggered my pissing match with them. From time to time some whackjob comes by and goes crazy so I have to ban them. It's not something I like to do, but occasionally it's got to be done.

By the way, what is "Wordbomb?" As you said, I am new.

Most traders do not set out to fail to deliver. But my understanding is a stock trade is still settled after 4 days, and that considerable pit trading still goes on in the US equity exchanges.

Pit trading is quickly vanishing as the exchanges go all electronic. I think it's a problem, because one of these years we'll see a virus or just a lock up among computer programs. I'm no expert in trading mechanics, but I think I recall that settlements got speeded up to one day sometime in the 1990s.


This post has been edited by Pwok: Sun 2nd September 2007, 6:53pm

[Unrepentant Vandal]

Pit trading is quickly vanishing as the exchanges go all electronic. I think it's a problem, because one of these years we'll see a virus or just a lock up among computer programs. I'm no expert in trading mechanics, but I think I recall that settlements got speeded up to one day sometime in the 1990s.

"One of these years"? Lock ups have already happened, you know... Albeit I'm not aware of anything all *that* serious happening. A virus would not be plausible on LIFFE connect though, so far as I can tell. Don't know about anything else!

LIFFE went all electronic in 98 btw. A very different art. And I'm now looking forward to a new allocation algorithm on swissy coming in later this month, it's already been introduced on the short sterlings but I haven't had a chance to play with it yet.