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 : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (202448)	5/15/2009 2:30:25 PM
From: NOW	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

This is VERY interesting: one wonders what might have inspired the late night conversion in Mr. Pattersons views... "Daily Telegraph Removes Mark Patterson Interview Posted by Tyler Durden at 12:10 PM It appears that the Daily Telegraph has gotten major cold feet about the incendiary interview (incendiary, at least, to the administration) it had posted last night with Mark Patterson. One can only speculate why that may be the case, but if you try to connect to the article that had received the biggest number of hits yesterday, you just get a big gaping 404 hole now. Luckily, ZH expected some potential foul play, which is why we copied the entire piece in its entirety and still have it available for readers who would rather be exposed to the truth instead of watching CNBC and other increasingly more censored media outlets. As Zero Hedge anticipates getting a take down notice from the DT any minute, I would love to get the feedback of any lawyer readers as to what recourse ZH would have in that case. Update: Zero Hedge has heard from representatives for Mr. Patterson who insist that the Telegraph article was removed because it contains factual errors: The posts are based on a factually incorrect article that appeared in the UK tabloid, The Telegraph. We have contacted The Telegraph, which has removed the article from its own site due to the fact that it fabricated, misquoted, and misstated MatlinPatterson's position. Zero Hedge is happy to post any corrections that Mr. Patterson and his law firm would like to provide. Update 2: This is a letter that Zero Hedge received from Mr. Patterson's representatives unsolicited, which delineates MP's views on why Evans-Pritchard's article was "factually incorrect." zerohedge.blogspot.com