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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Podsiadlik who wrote (92217)	8/18/2005 9:46:07 AM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 122087

Another post with no substance and merely an attack. I guess I hit a nerve. If I were an Overstock shareholder, I would agree that Byrne is probably bringing way more heat and using resources that may hurt the company. As I said, I admire him for doing it but agree that there are some issues with respect to the job of crusader that will conflict with his job as CEO. I suppose the rationale is that if he is successful in "outing" the hedgies and their arse kissing supporters, it may lead to a higher share price. As I posted, I'm not an owner of the stock although I think their service is great. As to knowledge of the market, I don't think being a hedgie defender shows that one has that knowledge. It certainly doesn't lead to being a great predictor of how issues will be resolved or what the truth is. Remember all the posts defending the "Batman defense?" Remember the defenders of extortion claiming that such things could never exist. Remember the cynical calls for acquittal, even jury nullification based on the greater good that the Batman defense implied? Alas, proven wrong, but perhaps the illusion of posting on a thread with a friendly audience kept those blinders in place. I disagree with your last line. I doubt that new investors would invest in Overstock based on "get shorty." For every one who would, there are probably many like myself, who would avoid it, even though I would have contemplated the stock in the past.

To: Kevin Podsiadlik who wrote (92217)	8/18/2005 11:29:34 AM
From: LPS5	Respond to of 122087

Couldn't agree more. Great post. e

To: Kevin Podsiadlik who wrote (92217)	8/18/2005 12:00:31 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 122087

Kevin, how conveniently some people forget that in our legal system the burden of proof is on the accuser. That's why people like Michael Zwebner are so insidious: they assume everyone who writes negatively about their company is part of some grand conspiracy with a Mr. Big somewhere behind the scenes pulling the strings. And somehow this justifies turning everyone's life upside down with rambling non-specific innuendo based lawsuits under the pretext of uncovering the truth. This is inevitably applauded by morons on message boards who rather than discuss the actual merits of the suit write vacuous posts with the logic that because it's obviously feasible someone somewhere is guilty of such things then it follows that the actual named defendants and their alleged actions should take a back-seat. As regards Byrne vs. Matthew, this was perfectly said by you: "Sounds to me like a simple case of "How-Can-Anybody-Be-Taking-This-Seriously" on Matthews's part. Easy enough to fall into if you're not prepared -- it's not every day that you run into someone who will look you straight in the eye and tell you with complete sincerity that the sky is green." As I always say, it's hard to have a rational discussion with an irrational person. Had Byrne said "we have documented evidence that Mr. X on such-and-such dates did X, Y, an Z; shortly we'll give more specifics", then, OK, I'd have given him the benefit of the doubt. Instead, you have people like Bob O'Brien pointing at Byrne's legal team and obscure references to Rudy Giuliani as proof there's substance. As always, just you wait and see. It's big. Real big. Uh, sure. Speaking of which, I also see now that Bob and his minions are in a connect-the-dots mode. It won't be long until we have yet another scandal that is declared bigger than Enron (pun intended since one of the dots is supposedly the ex-financial woman turned reporter who co-wrote "The Smartest Guys in the Room" about Enron). - Jeff