PS To readers other than Atlanta Don and Seth Jayson: I can continue parsing sentences to unravel this stuff, but it is pretty lightweight...and in the future, I am going to assume that I don't have to waste time addressing such issues. After all, I do have a day job.
Author: Hannibal100
boards.fool.com
Dear Atlanta Don,
You have made three points in your posting: that I was uncivil to Mr. Jayson, that I speak out of both sides of my mouths, and that I have misrepresented my relationship with Bob O'Brien. I will answer the first two of your points here. However, the third is a milder version of one often made by the miscreants (that O'Brien and I had some secret relationship before I ever allowed him on that deeply-plotted conference call). This criticism is so transparent I barely responded to it in the past, but now I will answer it separately as a stand-alone message, secure in my new discovery that there is, at last, a forum where I can write and be confident that it will reach intelligent listeners, and not be drowned out in chatter (as in Yahoo!). I will save that for another message, then, and just hit the first two points of your message.
I do value civility in debate, and am about as thick-skinned as it gets with folks who disagree with me honestly (my colleagues at work have full license to tell me I am foolishly missing something and they are going to ignore my input, said license being something they frequently exercise). And it is not the case that debates have to end in agreement, in my view.
However, there are times in debates when one realizes something is missing from the other side. This is not always proof that the other side is lying: often, it is simply that one party has reached such a level of indoctrination that he is unable to read words on a page that contradict his worldview. It is a state of existence that Orwell explored brilliantly in “1984,” and it is something I certainly saw in Communist China myself. It happens occasionally in this country as well (most often in political or legal discussions).
For example, I have stated that our lawsuit is about an unfair business practice having to do with tainted research, and have explained why it is not about shorting per se, and is completely unrelated to anything to do with naked shorting. I have pointed out repeatedly, for example in my blog, that I have no idea who is naked shorting our stock, and have no reason to think it is Mr. Rocker. Our lawsuit states that it (that same lawsuit) it is about an unfair business practice involving tainted research and not about shorting or naked shorting. I have gone on TV twice and explained it is not about shorting or naked shorting. I have told the newspapers it is not about shorting or naked shorting, and I took the time to write 12 answers to Mr. Jayson where I stated repeatedly that the lawsuit was not about shorting or naked shorting. In each case I have explained what the lawsuit is really about, and given people citation so they could read for themselves.
So in the face of such events, Mr. Jayson, has written, “I'd still love to see a discussion of exactly what the lawsuit's short conspiracy and/or the more nefarious alleged naked shorting …” “Sorry Vexas, but you are wrong on this point. It is about shorting….” Not to mention the numerous places in his 12 questions he bakes the same false premise into his questions. And so on and so forth.
Yes, it is possible that he is not being deceptive, I grant you: it could just be that he has reached a level of indoctrination that is so complete that he cannot read the words on the page in front of him, or comprehend the utterances I have made on TV, or understand the assertions made in the lawsuit, or click through and understand the nature of the California stature under which we filed our lawsuit, or such simple statements as appeared in my 12 responses. I grant you that as a logical possibility he may simply have reached a level of ideological purity that makes seeing and understanding such plainly contradictory evidence an act that is literally “unthinkable” for him, and so he need make no effort even to grapple with it. I admit that is a possibility.
The other possibility is, of course, that he is being deceptive, and trying to spin the story to his liking, presumably into a standard “CEO just doesn't like the shorts” story.
In the absence of any further evidence, I would give him the benefit of the doubt and go for the indoctrination explanation. I would say, “OK, for some strange reason Seth is so ideologically disposed to see this as a lawsuit about shorting and naked shorting that no contrary evidence of even the simplest variety can make it through his blinders.” OK, I'll go with that as a hypothesis, and slip into my back pocket the one that he is being purposefully deceptive.
Then, however, I get to Seth's claim in his 12 questions that I said somewhere that the “only” evidence I had were some affidavits. Well, I was damn sure that I never said that, and let him and Bill Mann know it. Seth's reply to me was interesting:
“To clarify, I got that information directly from what you said on your 8/12 CNBC interview. Right after Insana asks you about your allegations against Greenberg, and asks you what evidence you have, you shook your head, said 'nothing,' and then added, "I have affidavits…"
Now that is not simply, “a close call but he misunderstood.” It is not, “wrong.” It is not even, “incorrect but a minor misunderstanding.” It is a lie: I do not say “nothing,” I do not say “only,” I do nothing to indicate that these affidavits are our only evidence (hence I included a link to that interview in my response, so readers would not need to take my word for it: click here shareholder.com and watch the August 12 interview, minutes 4:00 to 4:30). I deny that any honest person can watch that section of the interview and see any basis for Seth's claim that I indicated these were the “only” evidence that I had, or that I said, “nothing” or anything that sounded like “nothing” or began with something that sounded like, “nothing.” It was simply a lie, and if the reader wants to save himself wading through piles of such material, I suggest she simply click through to that interview, watch it, and compare it with what Seth wrote me and Mr. Mann about what he saw in it.
Now why would Seth misrepresent something so utterly? One hypothesis is that he used the word “only” in his 12 questions in an attempt to deceive the reader, and when I called him on it, he responded (under Mr. Mann's eye on the cc: line) with a further obfuscation (that I had said, “nothing”), hoping that Mr. Mann would not take the time to click through and check for himself.
There may be some other hypothesis that would allow one to categorize this as an honest mistake, but for the life of me I cannot come up with it on my own. I am all ears, and open of heart, so feel free to postulate such a hypothesis. Until I hear it, I (and, I fear, every reader who takes the time to click through to watch that section of the interview, and compares it with Mr. Jayson's two false statements), must assume that Mr. Jayson is going to lie about things he think he can get away with, and hope no one checks his work, and when caught, will spin further deception, all of which is amply illustrated in the above example, and which any reader can easily check for herself.
Yes, I confess I am at a loss as to know exactly how much civility is owed to someone who is purposefully deceitful in the manner detailed above. But still, I answered his 12 questions civilly. When I wrote last night that I would use these boards to address questions others had raised, he peppered it with three more postings asking inane questions, repeating false-premised questions, and peppered with “Numbers, please” condescension. I think that, given these circumstances, I was rather thick-skinned and even slow to decide, OK, time to rip this guy's mask off (which I believe I successfully accomplished, given the response of others on this board, and your decision not to confront a single one of the actual issues outstanding between Mr. Jayson and me).
Moving on to point #2, Atlanta Don. You write:
“You even talk out of both sides of your mouth in one sentence: <I believe that even the detractors here (as opposed to Yahoo) are well-intentioned, and are truly just calling it as they see it (though of late, there do seem to be someone with an agenda, eh?)>”
Now consider the sentence:
“I love champagne (but Crystal gives me heartburn).”
Is this, “talking out of both sides of one's mouth”? Could be. But I prefer to think that most competent speakers of English would understand this utterance to mean, “Generally speaking, I love champagne, but one type of champagne, Crystal, gives me heartburn” (and perhaps, “so I avoid it”).
Similarly, the natural way to chunk the sentence you quote is, “In general, I believe the detractors here are well intentioned, but there does seem to be someone here with an agenda.”
If you want to claim that there is some deep inconsistency in my statement you are free to do so (but I doubt anyone else is convinced).
Oops, I just did it again. How 'bout that?
VR,
Patrick
PS To readers other than Atlanta Don and Seth Jayson: I can continue parsing sentences to unravel this stuff, but it is pretty lightweight. In a sense, continuing to do so may even fulfill the wishes of the miscreants, which is to misdirect attention away from the important issues about the company, the markets, and the law that bear discussion. My experience so far has been that Fools, whether they agree with me or not, generally don't get swept up in this kind of stuff, which is why these message boards are so much better than anyone else's. So for example, the claim about “civility” Don made was one worth addressing, but the “both sides of your mouth” one was sophomoric, and in the future, I am going to assume that I don't have to waste time addressing such issues. After all, I do have a day job. |
