Gary Weiss on naked short selling, trying to legitimize his actions Options

[LamontStormstar]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=159901271

The IP did two edits, second was typo, but first was "Corrected obtuse language which confuses naked short selling with legal short selling, highlight citatations of unsupported opinion as such."

The IP actually made naked short selling make sense instead of being unclear how it normally is on Wikipedia.


Ryulong, who is in cahoots with Weiss, Jayjg, SlimVirgin, and every other bad element on Wikipedia banned the IP for life to so it can never let truth appear on Wikipedia again.

IP said:

'''Naked short selling''', or '''naked shorting''', is a term used to refer to a form of stock manipulation involving the largely illegal practice of placing sales transactions for stock that the seller does not own, and has not borrowed. Hence, the sale is "naked", as the buyer's money is paid, but no share is delivered. Except for market makers in limited instances, deliberate delivery failure is prohibited by SEC rules. Naked short selling is not the same as innocent delivery failure due to lost or stolen certificates, nor is it related to legitimate short selling (where a share of stock is first borrowed before the sale is placed). The term refers to a deliberate practice designed to depress the price of the affected security, by creating the appearance of more supply than actually exists, by effecting sales transactions without capability or intent to deliver the shares sold.

That's naked short selling!


But Gary Weiss said:

'''Naked short selling''', or '''naked shorting''', is a form of [[Short selling|selling shares of securities short]] that seeks to profit from share price declines.

No, that's not naked short selling, which is illegal. That's regular short selling, which is legal.

The IP also did a few fixes in the second paragraph, too, but they're easier to see in diff mode: See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=159901271

I wonder how long until someone erases the diff!

Obvious, Gary Weiss is trying to legitimize his criminal actions

This post has been edited by LamontStormstar: Mon 24th September 2007, 9:48pm

[guy]

I had to adjust the title, which was tar pit material on its own.

[Piperdown]

I had to adjust the title, which was tar pit material on its own.

Lamont Lundbergh's on a role tonight. Must be a Piper/Wordmbomb/CliffB/anyoneelsewhocallsboolshitonsamimoreland puppet.

Looks like we got a trippleganger thread. Merge it!

[LamontStormstar]

I had to adjust the title, which was tar pit material on its own.

It's kinda better

[WordBomb]

Obvious, Gary Weiss is trying to legitimize his criminal actions

If I may...this is part of the larger phenomenon of hijacking social media that Patrick Byrne frequently mentions on his Deep Capture blog (the relevant introduction is here).

Feel free to email or PM me if you have any questions about this madness you'd rather not ask in an open forum.

It's wonderful to see folks finally begin to catch on; though I suppose I really should be thanking the ArbCom for their invaluable help.

[Jonny Cache]

I had to adjust the title, which was tar pit material on its own.

I think that it's way past time to create a special Bolgia, something like the Pit at the old Chicago Hog Futures Exchange, for these Naked Shorts Chewers and Eschewers, something that the rest of us can roll-up and ignore.

Jonny

[Unrepentant Vandal]

No, that's not naked short selling, which can be illegal in certain circumstances.

Corrected for accuracy.

[dtobias]

One shouldn't be indecently exposed when one is engaging in short selling, even if they've been eating Bart Simpson's shorts.

[Emperor]

Obvious, Gary Weiss is trying to legitimize his criminal actions

If I may...this is part of the larger phenomenon of hijacking social media that Patrick Byrne frequently mentions on his Deep Capture blog (the relevant introduction is here).

Feel free to email or PM me if you have any questions about this madness you'd rather not ask in an open forum.

It's wonderful to see folks finally begin to catch on; though I suppose I really should be thanking the ArbCom for their invaluable help.

Wow you guys are gullible. Some dude comes here and says Wall Street, legitimate journalists, and now social media are against him and trying to paint him as a crackpot with flying saucers coming out of his head. And you believe the crackpot, because it makes you feel more important as Wikipedia critics.

I don't have the patience to get through all this backstory but right now no one is making any sense and many here seem to be falling into the same stupid-ass secret agent spy-game bullshit that you always do. Patrick has had plenty of chances to air his story, and it still hasn't gotten anywhere. What does that tell you?

I understand one thing about this. Overstock.com is a money-losing company whose stock recently tanked, and Patrick Byrne, as CEO, has a very real interest in deflecting blame for this failure.

Now you've accused an innocent man of being a criminal. I hope your two seconds of feeling important was worth launching such a hasty and unfounded smear. Either that or you should apologize right away for saying such a stupid thing about Gary Weiss, who has not been convicted in any court.

[Piperdown]

Obvious, Gary Weiss is trying to legitimize his criminal actions

If I may...this is part of the larger phenomenon of hijacking social media that Patrick Byrne frequently mentions on his Deep Capture blog (the relevant introduction is here).

Feel free to email or PM me if you have any questions about this madness you'd rather not ask in an open forum.

It's wonderful to see folks finally begin to catch on; though I suppose I really should be thanking the ArbCom for their invaluable help.

Wow you guys are gullible. Some dude comes here and says Wall Street, legitimate journalists, and now social media are against him and trying to paint him as a crackpot with flying saucers coming out of his head. And you believe the crackpot, because it makes you feel more important as Wikipedia critics.

I don't have the patience to get through all this backstory but right now no one is making any sense and many here seem to be falling into the same stupid-ass secret agent spy-game bullshit that you always do. Patrick has had plenty of chances to air his story, and it still hasn't gotten anywhere. What does that tell you?

I understand one thing about this. Overstock.com is a money-losing company whose stock recently tanked, and Patrick Byrne, as CEO, has a very real interest in deflecting blame for this failure.

Now you've accused an innocent man of being a criminal. I hope your two seconds of feeling important was worth launching such a hasty and unfounded smear. Either that or you should apologize right away for saying such a stupid thing about Gary Weiss, who has not been convicted in any court.

You see, Wikipedia is not the real world. It appears Byrne is "getting somewhere" in the real world. It appears the SEC commissioner agrees with him. It appears some very high up judges agree with the viability of his suits. Thanks for clearing up that Byrne is a "crackpot". Do you have a reliable source for that claim other than Gary Weiss?

Byrne started his NSS acitivity when his stock was in the 60's or 70's. Just how does that mean he started doing it to "deflect blame"?

Maybe he's like people on wikipedia who find out things and have the sense of right and wrong to try and right them, regardless of its social or wikisocial consequences.

This post has been edited by Piperdown: Tue 25th September 2007, 5:03pm

[Emperor]

You see, Wikipedia is not the real world. It appears Byrne is "getting somewhere". Thanks for clearing up that Byrne is a "crackpot". Do you have a reliable source for that claim?

Byrne started his NSS acitivity when his stock was in the 60's or 70's. Just how does that mean he started doing it to "deflect blame"?

Maybe he's like people on wikipedia who find out things and have the sense of right and wrong to try and right them, regardless of its social or wikisocial consequences.

Wikipedians should not be trying to right social injustices or uncover vast conspiracies.

I believe he said somewhere that people are trying to paint him as a crackpot. I happen to agree with that assessment. Even his own dad has said that he wishes Patrick would back off. I don't need to give you a source. This isn't Wikipedia. Believe me or not... use your own brain... you can just as easily google and pull up some crappy internet article of your choice as I can.

I don't know the details of the NSS thing but Patrick strikes me as an overprivileged kid who's running the family business into the ground and needs someone or something to blame. I'm not saying that his accusations shouldn't be taken seriously, but that it's already been done by the proper authorities. Some sort of astroturf witchhunt campaign against Gary Weiss, started on social media, is not a good outcome and it's not something Wikipedia Review should be involved in.

[JohnA]

Looks like a user Dozen13 is being overwritten by two Weiss accounts "Samiharris" and "Mantanmoreland" and by an IP address. It's only a matter of time before Dozen13 gets banned as a Wordbomb/Jon Awbrey/Willy on Wheels sock, called an Enemy of the Wikistate and cast into the outer darkness.

And no, its not me and I have no knowledge of who Dozen13 is.

But since when has that stopped people being banned for opposing Weiss before?

This post has been edited by JohnA: Tue 25th September 2007, 8:27pm

[WhispersOfWisdom]

Naked Shorting ...from investopedia.



The illegal practice of short selling shares that have not been affirmatively determined to exist. Ordinarily, traders must borrow a stock, or determine that it can be borrowed, before they sell it short. However, some professional investors and hedge funds take advantage of loopholes in the rules to sell shares without making any attempt to borrow the stock.

On Oct 29, 2003, the SEC implemented a new rule to ban naked shorting in order to protect thinly traded stocks that are vulnerable to aggressive short-selling which would cause the stock price to fall. Critics of the new rule argue that if naked-shorting had not taken place during the micro-cap crime wave of the 1990s, such stocks would have climbed even higher before they crashed. Thus, the SEC's action to ban naked-shorting eliminated the only market force against over-hyped, or even fraudulent, small-cap and micro-cap stocks.

******

There is a wide margin of difference between what we hear in the news and what really happens in the investment world. "Selling something short" is different with nearly every investment vehicle, and for the most part, it is all LEGAL. (e.g., shorting stocks, bonds, commodities, etc. Many of the above do NOT have to be borrowed. That is a very old rule and it does not apply to futres, options, etc.)

For any officer or director, of any U.S. company, to get away with anything illegal, involving buying and selling listed securities, or short selling same, is highly unlikely. The industry is now essentially being run by compliance officers. If Mr. Weiss broke any securities laws, it will be established and he will "face the music." Officers and directors can sell their own shares (at specific times,) and they can also "short stock against the box."

This post has been edited by WhispersOfWisdom: Tue 25th September 2007, 10:10pm

[LamontStormstar]

[...] Jon Awbrey/Willy on Wheels sock [...]

And no, its not me

You kinda chose a bad username, JohnA.

[guy]

Wikipedians should not be trying to right social injustices or uncover vast conspiracies.

No, that would be original research.