Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits for Pros – moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Podsiadlik who wrote (63)	4/17/2005 6:36:44 AM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 120

There you guys go again. You can't refute the message. Seems to me the CEO of Overstock has done one heck of a job in growing a company in the face of EBAY and Amazon. Let's put it this way. If we have to go to personalities, which I'd prefer not to do, on one side you have Byrne and on the other side you have those who claim naked shorting doesn't exist, well no contest. Byrne specificially said this was not an issue for his company but he feels strongly about it for the sake of fair markets. Sure enough, posters like you attack him. No wonder "bob o'brien" preferred to scam with his anonymous address. Then, you claim I attack you. LOL......

To: Kevin Podsiadlik who wrote (63)	4/17/2005 7:35:41 AM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 120

Kevin, I want to modify my previous post to you. You actually seem to be one of the few who tries to independently analyze and discuss the substance of issues. I never followed Overstock and don't have an opinion on the stock or Byrne as a CEO. From the surface, it certainly looks like he accomplished a miracle and compared to most CEO's, should be beatified. He's taking the time to take on something he feels strongly about in an altruistic way, naked shorting and the activities of hedge funds. I'd have posted his article if he were some shlub. His message was well written, understandable and worthy of discussion. Yet, when it was posted, the minions of former guru suckups decided someone had broken the code of dishonor that exists on some of the threads they populate. I have no problem discussing and debating the substance of his article or those by others on each side of the naked shorting debate. I don't have the time or the inclination to research a poster or someone else's life history and really don't care because I'd prefer to debate substantively. These idiots who come basically to stalk and attack usually have very little to say, other than to tear down. They have very little orginal or substantive to post. I'll stand on what I posted on the other thread. Take a look at the posts from the beginning of the year. I brought substance and was attacked. I can give it so that doesn't bother me. The wimps banned me, when I gave it back to me, and still claim to be beacons of free internet speech.