[WikiEN-l] Cade Metz on Mantanmoreland & Short selling

[Nathan]

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 at 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/Mantanmorelan
> d_
> (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland
> )
>
> 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.
>