I wouldn't go that far Thomas. By the way here is a lazy link to an Arb case on Mantanmoreland _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmorela... d_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmorela...)
The point of the article in The Register, in part I think, is that this situation of attacking Byrne was allowed to continue for a very very long time. And now the FDIC has "fully vindicated him". I'm not sure if that is an accurate way to put it, but it certainly puts the entire history in a new light doesn't it?
He was decrying naked short selling for quite a while, while WP insiders like Mantanmoreland were able to squelch him. And now he was right, and they were wrong, at least per this article. And it's egg on our face, for treating the opposing sides in such a one-sided manner.
Of course we're not alone, since the WSJ wouldn't publish Byrne's article at the time, but now Forbes has.
**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
2008/10/1 WJhonson@aol.com:
He was decrying naked short selling for quite a while, while WP insiders like Mantanmoreland were able to squelch him. And now he was right, and they were wrong, at least per this article. And it's egg on our face, for treating the opposing sides in such a one-sided manner.
He and Judd Bagley were kicked off Wikipedia (and keep being kicked off Wikipedia) for massive sockpuppeting, harassment and stalking. If someone does that, they'll get treated like someone who does that. No-one could give two hoots about the content issue, and I'm amazed you consider it an excuse.
- d.
I don't think the FDIC vindicated anyone. That isn't really its role (see [[FDIC]]). It's nice that Byrne is claiming that he predicted this whole mess, and if only we at Wikipedia (where we control the public discourse, apparently) had realized it we could have saved everyone all the trouble. Unfortunately, he didn't predict it at all - he blamed naked short-sellers for specifically targeting companies in order to decrease their share price without putting up money, and explained his own company's lackluster performance as the result of this tactic. Although, perhaps there was more - the "never published" editorial, maybe? We'll never know for sure...
Nathan
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:10 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
I wouldn't go that far Thomas. By the way here is a lazy link to an Arb case on Mantanmoreland _ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmorela... d_ ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmorela... )
The point of the article in The Register, in part I think, is that this situation of attacking Byrne was allowed to continue for a very very long time. And now the FDIC has "fully vindicated him". I'm not sure if that is an accurate way to put it, but it certainly puts the entire history in a new light doesn't it?
He was decrying naked short selling for quite a while, while WP insiders like Mantanmoreland were able to squelch him. And now he was right, and they were wrong, at least per this article. And it's egg on our face, for treating the opposing sides in such a one-sided manner.
Of course we're not alone, since the WSJ wouldn't publish Byrne's article at the time, but now Forbes has.
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:10 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
He was decrying naked short selling for quite a while, while WP insiders like Mantanmoreland were able to squelch him. And now he was right, and they were wrong, at least per this article. And it's egg on our face, for treating the opposing sides in such a one-sided manner.
[Redacted 1] had the point of view that naked short selling was going to destroy the earth. [Redacted 2] had the point of view that it was a legitimate trading strategy.
The reality was somewhere in between. But Wikipedia's article, when I checked it many months ago, basically gave the POV of [Redacted 2].