Akahele - Judd Bagley, Weighing the options Options

[Kato]

Weighing the options

My direct involvement notwithstanding, I feel it’s both fair and accurate to say that the events surrounding the Gary Weiss/Mantanmoreland affair were among the strangest and most polarizing in Wikipedia’s history.

[Hipocrite]

Weighing the options

My direct involvement notwithstanding, I feel it’s both fair and accurate to say that the events surrounding the Gary Weiss/Mantanmoreland affair were among the strangest and most polarizing in Wikipedia’s history.

Petty revenge is so unbecoming.

"We’re always on the watch for website shoals where misinformation, defamation, fraud, and unethical practices rule the day – so that you may properly gird yourself, or steer clear entirely,"

How many links to antisocialmedia are in the linked post? Is that, perhaps, a website shoals where misinformation, defamation, fraud, and unethical practices rule the day? I guess two wrongs DO make a right!

[the fieryangel]

How many links to antisocialmedia are in the linked post? Is that, perhaps, a website shoals where misinformation, defamation, fraud, and unethical practices rule the day? I guess two wrongs DO make a right!

It's all relative, my dear....what did you say your name was again??. In any case, Judd made a very strong case here and the connection with the Chicago exchange has come up before on WR. Do I also have to explain to you how "naked short selling" has become a rather central issue in the past few months?

[Hipocrite]

How many links to antisocialmedia are in the linked post? Is that, perhaps, a website shoals where misinformation, defamation, fraud, and unethical practices rule the day? I guess two wrongs DO make a right!

It's all relative, my dear....what did you say your name was again??. In any case, Judd made a very strong case here and the connection with the Chicago exchange has come up before on WR. Do I also have to explain to you how "naked short selling" has become a rather central issue in the past few months?

Hipocrite. I fail to see the margin in releasing my ID to you. Perhaps you can educate me about what benefits I would see from telling you whom I am. Would I get fun and exciting phone calls in the middle of the day at work, or would you direct those at my boss? Hate mail sent to my wife? Thanks, but I'll pass, "the fieryangel." Wait, wait, I know who you are, but not because you told anyone, right. I mean, you went out of the way to hide who you were for quite some time - in fact, I think that if I were to write your name right here it would turn into BAN ME BAN ME, right?

Mr. Bagley is a fringy conspiracy theorist. "Naked short selling" has not become a rather central issue.

[the fieryangel]

How many links to antisocialmedia are in the linked post? Is that, perhaps, a website shoals where misinformation, defamation, fraud, and unethical practices rule the day? I guess two wrongs DO make a right!

It's all relative, my dear....what did you say your name was again??. In any case, Judd made a very strong case here and the connection with the Chicago exchange has come up before on WR. Do I also have to explain to you how "naked short selling" has become a rather central issue in the past few months?

Hipocrite. I fail to see the margin in releasing my ID to you. Perhaps you can educate me about what benefits I would see from telling you whom I am. Would I get fun and exciting phone calls in the middle of the day at work, or would you direct those at my boss? Hate mail sent to my wife? Thanks, but I'll pass, "the fieryangel." Wait, wait, I know who you are, but not because you told anyone, right. I mean, you went out of the way to hide who you were for quite some time - in fact, I think that if I were to write your name right here it would turn into BAN ME BAN ME, right?

Mr. Bagley is a fringy conspiracy theorist. "Naked short selling" has not become a rather central issue.

Nope, typing my name works just fine - here, look : Paul Wehage.

The only person I see making threats on this thread is you. I don't think that this works very well here. Maybe you want to go back to Wikipedia to do that? There are lots of people there who will call bosses, wives and the like to get revenge...

[Somey]

Mr. Bagley is a fringy conspiracy theorist. "Naked short selling" has not become a rather central issue.

I don't think you can call him a "theorist" if the conspiracy being described turns out to have actually existed, can you?

To some extent I would agree that NSS hasn't become a central issue, but it's definitely getting attention. And how would you know, anyway? Are you a Wall Street insider? If not, then.... understand that the media is only now getting around to examining Phil Gramm's role in the disastrous deregulation of the banking system, after over a year of financial-sector crisis directly related to exactly that. They'll probably need at least another 6-10 months to pick up on NSS, since it's a much more complex issue - heck, by then the "Great Recession" might even be over.

[Hipocrite]

Mr. Bagley is a fringy conspiracy theorist. "Naked short selling" has not become a rather central issue.

I don't think you can call him a "theorist" if the conspiracy being described turns out to have actually existed, can you?

To some extent I would agree that NSS hasn't become a central issue, but it's definitely getting attention. And how would you know, anyway? Are you a Wall Street insider? If not, then.... understand that the media is only now getting around to examining Phil Gramm's role in the disastrous deregulation of the banking system, after over a year of financial-sector crisis directly related to exactly that. They'll probably need at least another 6-10 months to pick up on NSS, since it's a much more complex issue - heck, by then the "Great Recession" might even be over.

Except there's no conspiracy and it doesn't exist, except in the fevered brains of people paid to pitch bad companies that are a bonanza for the shorts.

I'll bet you right now that on the list of things responsible for the great recession, naked short selling doesn't even get past the prelims.

[WordBomb]

Mr. Bagley is a fringy conspiracy theorist. "Naked short selling" has not become a rather central issue.

Unfortunately for the global economy, the SEC waited to put a stop to my fringy conspiracy theory until the day after it destroyed Lehman Brothers.

But you can cram it, Hippo. I'd be more concerned if someone like you were on my side.

What an extraordinary troll this fellow is. Probably the one thing in life he really excels at.

[dtobias]

How many links to antisocialmedia are in the linked post?

Oooh! They're linking to a BADSITE, so that makes them a BADSITE too, by the Transitive Property of Badsiteness. And it makes WR a BADSITE for linking to them... oops, WR is already a BADSITE, so it probably can't get any badder than that!

[EricBarbour]

I fail to see the margin in releasing my ID to you. Perhaps you can educate me about what benefits I would see from telling you whom I am. Would I get fun and exciting phone calls in the middle of the day at work, or would you direct those at my boss? Hate mail sent to my wife? Thanks, but I'll pass, "the fieryangel." Wait, wait, I know who you are, but not because you told anyone, right. I mean, you went out of the way to hide who you were for quite some time - in fact, I think that if I were to write your name right here it would turn into BAN ME BAN ME, right?

My personal preference would be more of the BITE ME BITE ME variety, sir.

Have a nice day, [redacted].

This post has been edited by Somey: Wed 8th April 2009, 2:43pm

[Cla68]

Weighing the options

My direct involvement notwithstanding, I feel it’s both fair and accurate to say that the events surrounding the Gary Weiss/Mantanmoreland affair were among the strangest and most polarizing in Wikipedia’s history.

Jimbo has vehemently denied to me that he has any kind of financial or social connection to Weiss or naked short selling. Until I see some real evidence of it, I can't join in in accusing of him of such a connection.

Why, then, has Jimbo acted in such a difficult manner concerning Weiss and Mantanmoreland? If you ask him directly, as Judd did in that column, he asks for proof and then clams up after you give it to him. Perhaps Kelly Martin would have some insightful analysis into Jimbo's motivation. Kelly's insight into Jimbo's behavior usually seems right on the money (so to speak).

Remember, Weiss is an investigative journalist. I wouldn't want to be on the bad side of an investigative journalist if I were a public figure. Sometimes, however, you have to take a stand for what's right. Jimbo's refusal to do so has been very frustrating to many of us.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Tue 31st March 2009, 1:45am

[Emperor]

What's weird is that as far as I can tell, the blog post has no disclosure explaining that Mr. Bagley works for Mr. Byrne and Overstock.com (directly or indirectly). Thus the reader may take him as an impartial observer rather than as a paid employee of a company with a stake in the debate.

[GlassBeadGame]

What's weird is that as far as I can tell, the blog post has no disclosure explaining that Mr. Bagley works for Mr. Byrne and Overstock.com (directly or indirectly). Thus the reader may take him as an impartial observer rather than as a paid employee of a company with a stake in the debate.

Hard to say Judd is hiding the ball when he begins the post with "My direct involvement notwithstanding."

[Jon Awbrey]

Remember, Weiss is an investigative journalist. I wouldn't want to be on the bad side of an investigative journalist if I were a public figure.

You've got to be joking.

Jimbo "didn't have a problem with" irking Brandt.

If you're gonna have fear and trembling about getting on the bad side of someone, I think you'd be wise to save your whole glove box full of kid gloves for Brandt, not Weiss.

But I doubt if Jimbo really has a clue about all that.

Jon

[WordBomb]

What's weird is that as far as I can tell, the blog post has no disclosure explaining that Mr. Bagley works for Mr. Byrne and Overstock.com (directly or indirectly). Thus the reader may take him as an impartial observer rather than as a paid employee of a company with a stake in the debate.

Thank you for reminding me that tomorrow marks the one year anniversary of my last day at Overstock.com.

[Cla68]

What's weird is that as far as I can tell, the blog post has no disclosure explaining that Mr. Bagley works for Mr. Byrne and Overstock.com (directly or indirectly). Thus the reader may take him as an impartial observer rather than as a paid employee of a company with a stake in the debate.

Thank you for reminding me that tomorrow marks the one year anniversary of my last day at Overstock.com.

Judd, in your column you say, "All the while, Wikipedia remains the first option offered those searching the web for information about naked shorting, and its role in the current financial crisis." I just looked at the NSS article in Wikipedia, and as it currently reads it is extremely critical of NSS. It mentions the Lehman brothers, as well as a ton of other criticism. If anything, I would propose that the article's current POV has swung to the other extreme than it was a year ago.

I see on the article's talk page that some editors don't think the article is sufficiently critical of NSS, but it does seem a whole lot more critical than it was before.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Tue 31st March 2009, 6:31am

[Somey]

...you can cram it, Hippo. I'd be more concerned if someone like you were on my side.

What an extraordinary troll this fellow is. Probably the one thing in life he really excels at.

On the contrary - if he excelled at it, he wouldn't be quite so obvious!

Except there's no conspiracy and it doesn't exist, except in the fevered brains of people paid to pitch bad companies that are a bonanza for the shorts.

Ah, well. Hey, that kool-aid tastes great, doesn't it? I hear that if you drink enough of it, you can pretend the tape recordings of pro-NSS media strategizing don't exist, and you can even overlook the fact that Mantanmoreland used to edit WP from right inside the DTCC building!

I'll bet you right now that on the list of things responsible for the great recession, naked short selling doesn't even get past the prelims.

Let me guess - it's all Obama's fault, right?

I thought so.

[Hipocrite]

Mr. Bagley is a fringy conspiracy theorist. "Naked short selling" has not become a rather central issue.

Unfortunately for the global economy, the SEC waited to put a stop to my fringy conspiracy theory until the day after it destroyed Lehman Brothers.

If Naked Short Selling had anything to do with Lehman brothers, why are Lehman Brother's bonds near worthless? I mean, you're arguing that it's a good company that went bankrupt because it's stock went to zero? Puhleze. It was a bad company that everyone saw failing, so they shorted the stock. Then, because everyone shorted the stock, they couldn't get a borrow.

Except there's no conspiracy and it doesn't exist, except in the fevered brains of people paid to pitch bad companies that are a bonanza for the shorts.

Ah, well. Hey, that kool-aid tastes great, doesn't it? I hear that if you drink enough of it, you can pretend the tape recordings of pro-NSS media strategizing don't exist, and you can even overlook the fact that Mantanmoreland used to edit WP from right inside the DTCC building!

I'll bet you right now that on the list of things responsible for the great recession, naked short selling doesn't even get past the prelims.

Let me guess - it's all Obama's fault, right?

I thought so.

It's all the fault of people who were using bad models to price the risk of collateralized instruments. Slicing something into 5 parts doesn't change the risk characteristic of the recombined thing, so the expected loss of the 5 parts has to equal the whole. ABS CDO models failed this sanity check.

[Random832]

If Naked Short Selling had anything to do with Lehman brothers, why are Lehman Brother's bonds near worthless? I mean, you're arguing that it's a good company that went bankrupt because it's stock went to zero? Puhleze. It was a bad company that everyone saw failing, so they shorted the stock. Then, because everyone shorted the stock, they couldn't get a borrow.

And when people short a stock without "getting a borrow", that's called - all together now...

[LaraLove]

Have a nice day, Bob.

Hipocrite is PoupOnToast?