AI
Friday, January 27, 2006 11:12:22 AM
My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss
Location: BlogsBob O'Brien's Sanity Check Blog
Posted by: bobo 1/26/2006 2:57 PM
Author Gary Weiss has been at it again, issuing forth another insulting rant in which he accuses me of being a coward, of libeling him, etc. This from the guy who refers to me as the "spokesperson for the Baloney Brigade". The hypocrisy is not lost on me. In the interest of frank and open discourse, I am reprinting his little blurb below (under the theory of fair use), along with my comments – although frankly, any adult upright biped should be able to read this and understand what is going on without any prompting from me. So here is my open letter to Gary:
Gary:
I feel like we never talk any more, and that you just don't hear me when I try to express myself to you. How did we ever get to this ugly, awful place? Can't we patch things up, and get back to the way things might have been? I hope you will read my words below, and take them with the love that they are intended. I can't believe that you wrote what you did, so I'm going to go statement by statement. Try to keep up, dumbass. Ooops. I can't believe I said that. See how quckly all this poisons our relationship?
“BALONEY RE-UPDATE: As is standard practice with the Baloney Brigade, the group's chief spokesman, who cowers behind the fictional name "Bob O'Brien," responded to the posts in this blog, and perceptions (mostly inaccurate) of the contents of my book, with a variety of libelous personal attacks on me in his website. Among them was this gem:
"Yes folks, this is the world of professional journalism - Businessweek's best, who basically regurgitated a bunch of long cold stories about the mob on wall street and cobbled it together into a career, is high fiving cyber-trash in the same way that [deleted] and [deleted] did."
Gary. Sweetie. You seem testy. Don’t be. It is unbecoming of an author of your serious standing. Never let them see you sweat, ‘hmm ‘kay?
No cowering going on. None. So wrong.
And as to the "Baloney Brigade", I am not a card-carrying member – never got a form to fill out, nor was I elected its head, thus I can only presume that you are using that as some sort of insult – how unexpected, given your whining over libelous personal attacks. As to my perceptions about your oft-self-touted book, I’m afraid I have no perceptions, accurate or otherwise – my comments have been addressing your blog comments and selected outtakes cited in the NY Post. I honestly have exactly zero interest in your book’s contents, given what I have seen of your work thus far.
Now, I am of the opinion that you regurgitated a bunch of long-cold mob stories to cobble together a career, such as it is. I have seen no proof you didn’t. I suppose we could go back and see when the data on each story came to light, and see whether you broke it (versus regurgitating someone else's data), but frankly that's way more work than I'm prepared to do; so if you have hard evidence that I am in error in my beliefs, have at it – until then, I shall maintain my opinion, as thankfully, it requires no effort on my part.
My comment about "high-fiving cyber kooks" is accurate, as you have given noted “net nut” Tony Ryals space in your blog, and positive comment (Tony was spamming every site I ever visited last year with incorrect speculations that I am James Dale Davidson), as well as Cupandsaucer (who is the sole ID ever to have been banned from this blog for issuing forth insults and such, after several warnings to behave) – in my vernacular, "cyber kooks", who you have been rhetorically high-fiving, while censoring my comments. As well as many other civil, intelligent comments from other non-kooks. So I stand by that statement.
”This is lamentably typical of the Baloney Brigade. Since the anti-shorters have nothing more than repetitive arguments to advance their cause, they grow frustrated like little children and lash out when questioned -- but always cowering, using phony names like their mothers' skirts.”
Huh.
“Repetitive arguments” which you have been regrettably unable to counter with anything but name-calling, and an odd reliance upon your own declarative statements - as though they have the weight of fact. They don’t. We do not all share your overly-high opinion of your utterances, and certainly don’t assume that they are based on anything of tangible substance, absent supporting data - which you have been unable to supply.
As an example, I have repeatedly asked you to explain how taking money from an investor, and then not delivering the product he paid for, is anything but fraud.
You haven’t been able to do so.
You also haven’t been able to support your statement that illegal naked short selling is good – i.e. fraud is good - if it is used to counter other alleged fraud, like corporate malfeasance, or pump and dump scams.
You further have made statements to the effect of “it has been proven time and time again that naked short selling is good” – absent any proof that any such thing has ever been shown to be correct, much less proven time and time again.
You have also claimed the FOIA data is meaningless, as though you possess some proprietary mechanism for knowing what no other person outside of the DTCC and SEC knows (to whit, whether or not it is meaningless) without offering any explanation for your contention.
After carefully balancing all of this, it is safe to say that I think you are full of poop, and see no reason to modify that opinion.
Lest that seem unusually harsh and unfair, let’s offer the cheap seats at home a few examples of what does pass for “proof” in Gary-world, so we can appreciate where you are coming from. My favorite is from another, earlier blog, wherein you cite the DTCC’s recent PR release as some sort of evidence that I am an idiot, or a liar, or deluded in some unspecified way:
“This release is important so I'm excerpting from it at length, which hopefully the DTCC won't mind. Basically the Baloney Blitzkrieg has been discredited yet again -- not that it matters even a bit, as I will be explaining.... :”
Here we have yet more "Gary"(tm) insults, and the declaration that the “Baloney Blitzkrieg” has been discredited yet again – presuming that I am a member, and that “I/we” have ever been discredited in the past, and that this piece discredits “us” now. This is not the case, as we shall see in a second:
“Something stands out in that press release -- DTCC's exclusion. The DTCC is a staid and totally blameless organization that has had its name dragged through the mud by the brainless boobs of the Baloney Brigade, and knows more about short-selling mechanics than just about any other person or institution. Why was it excluded?
-------------
I see that the Baloney Blitzkrieg is hard at work trying to spin this DTCC press release, using the usual combination of smoke, mirrors and baloney. The shame is that no matter how many times the sheer idiocy of their allegations is exposed, they just plow on ahead.”
Gary, Babe, you really should have listened to your gut here, and trusted it. That jumped out at me, too. So much so that I looked up Dr. Trimbath’s comments from the NASAA meeting, and on page 46 saw where she told Ralph Lambiase, in a discussion with him, that she knew the DTCC had been invited to the forum, but declined to send a representative - which Ralph in no way negated or took issue with. That’s because they were invited, and the claim that they weren’t is a blatant falsehood.
Now, why would a veteran reporter like you buy Wall Street’s dissembling hook, line and sinker, while I, a rank amateur, checked it and discovered it to be inaccurate? Doesn’t that speak volumes as to the quality of what we can expect of your diligence, and color your declaration that the DTCC is totally blameless, as, well, meaningless, and intellectually lazy?
That is one of the reasons I won’t be buying your upcoming tome – missing something this obvious is just shoddy, IMO. Perhaps there is another reason that Businessweek’s ad revenues are down so drastically? Just a thought, if your performance here is typical of the breed…
Or how about the DTCC’s invention of statements from the NASD’s Cam Funkhauser, and their mis-statement as to what he actually said? Why was I able to discover that he didn’t say what the DTCC claims he did in that release, and you didn’t? Is that the sort of “smoke and mirrors” you're referring to? I’ll let you in on the magician’s trick, give you a peek behind the curtain: I took the time to read his statements, word for word, rather than credulously parroting the DTCC’s party line, as you did.
Now, when you say “spin”, are you referring to my proving that the DTCC’s release is, to put it charitably, highly inaccurate in a number of critical places, and that it makes false claims as to what regulators said? Is that what you are referring to as “spin”? Or are you referring to your own ignoring the falsehoods contained in the release, and hurling more insults, as “spin”? Or to the DTCC’s making false and misleading claims? Is that the “spin” to which you take such umbrage? Around here, we have a different word for it: the “truth”. You may need to look that up. Under “T”, not “S”.
You have censored me from responding to you because of an arbitrary rule you made up part of the way through our discourse: that you won’t have a discussion unless I provide my real name. This rule doesn’t apply to anyone else, and was only created once it became obvious that I was handing you your head.
Nobody is fooled into believing that it is anything but a transparent effort to evade being shown to be inadequately armed for this discussion – you have taken the position that you are a victim, and I am the victimizer, because I take advantage of the Internet’s anonymity - while you simultaneously allow every crackpot that can articulate a misspelled run-on sentence to have free rein on your blog. I don’t mind the insults, as they insult the intelligence of your readers more than they insult me, but frankly the phony, acrimonious hand-wringing is silly. Please stop. It is embarrassing to watch. Really.
I’ve saved your best for last, though:
“What's even more lamentable is that anyone takes seriously a movement whose principal spokesman doesn't have the integrity to use his real name as he slanders people. "O'Brien's" excuse is that he is acting on "advice of counsel." At first I thought it was baloney but now I realize that it makes sense. Any smart lawyer would advise a client not to attach his or her real name to a libel.
On that note, I think I'll take my leave of the Baloney Brigade for the time being. I'll provide updates as developments warrant, however.”
Where do I start? Gary, honey, libel and slander have different meanings - the giveaway is that they start with different letters. Words are funny that way. 'nuff said, no?
You claim that by expressing my opinion that you are a hack, who got much wrong W/R/T naked short selling, that I have slandered and libeled you, and yet you have offered no proof that you aren’t one – nothing factual – or that you haven’t gotten much of your data wrong, as with the DTCC piece. Thus, I maintain that my opinion is justified. That you do so while calling me names and attacking my character is both pathetically funny, as well as further support for my opinion. Given that you have offered us nothing but your own hot air as support for your positions,and given that your conclusions appear to be constructed on a precarious foundation of incorrect info, false logic, and non-facts, I am secure that my sentiment about your skill and research quality is adequate to the task.
As an aside, I note that you find it amusing that I would want to safeguard my anonymity – the irony, coming from you, who has written about the mob’s presence on Wall Street, is not lost on me. That you have ignored the threats that Dave Patch, Bud Burrell, and Wes Christian have received, speaks volumes. And further underscores the selective comprehension of data that has resulted in the profound lack of interest I have in reading your upcoming screed. I know you probably don’t care, and I’m sure that you believe that your average reader is far less bright than I am, thus they will be unable to catch on as quickly – you know your audience far better than I – and you are probably right. You would have to sort of depend on it, I would think, judging from your performance in this vignette.
Huh.
OK, I can see that this open "Dear John" letter isn't working as intended. Now I sound like I am annoyed, and I don't want to come off that way. Gary, let's try again, shall we?
Let's ask the audience - does anyone think I have gotten this wrong? Am I incorrect in my take on this? Am I being unfair to Gary, or do his arguments have some merit I have missed?
I have invited him to come to this blog, an uncensored forum wherein he can disabuse me of my incorrect notions, but he has chosen not to. He prefers his forum, where he can ignore what he likes, characterize difficult arguments which show him to be wrong as idiocy and craziness, and avoid fielding any questions for which he lacks convincing answers.
I would love for him to come out and play – it is one thing to insist you are right, stamping your feet and throwing a hyperbole-laden hissy fit, but it is quite another to actually prove it.
I’m not holding my breath.
Let's try going back to the letter format, now, and see if that is softer and gentler:
Gary, I hope that we can move past this difficult period, and find ourselves in a better and more peaceful place. I sense the dull black cloud of embittered rage that is spoiling your view of all the pretty flowers and easter eggs that are out there in the world, and I hope that you take this opportunity to put all this behind you. Whatever you decide, I'll be OK with, but don't say that I didn't try to make my innermost thoughts about our relationship known to you.
Your friend forever,
The Easter Bunny - AKA Bob O'Brien
XXOO
Copyright ©2006 Bob O'Brien
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments (22) Add Comment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By High-Fiving-White-Guy on 1/26/2006 4:57 PM
Bob- Time to give it up. You have done more to sell Gary's new book than anyone ever would for him even if they were paid. Now that you know how much research he has put into his new book, based on his comments; don't you think he should be sending a check to NCANS? I doubt even Oprah could have done a better job as evidenced by her show today.Oh and Tony thanks you also! I would follow Gary's lead and delete anything that does not mesh with your thinking here and then delete entire subjects like he is doing on his blog. The world will be a better place according to Gary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By bobo on 1/26/2006 5:02 PM
I...I just feel so used....it's like he doesn't even notice me anymore....he never calls.....and I hear he's now seeing other bloggers....says his feelings have just changed, and that it's him, not me....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By Chris on 1/26/2006 5:02 PM
You really should run for office, you have a way with words that captivate people. Why not invite Mr.Weiss into a live debate, perhaps on CFRN or maybe Businessjive so we can all hear how he's able to defend his statements in real time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By High-Fiving-White-Guy on 1/26/2006 5:13 PM
Chris- Gary spends his time editing out written material constantly. Can you imagine him trying to do this live on the air. I can hear him screaming: "Gradient, Rocker, Cramer tell me what to say now?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By Chris on 1/26/2006 5:24 PM
Thats why it should be live, if he believes in what he is saying it should come naturally, unless he's afraid to be confronted by someone like Mr. O'Brien.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By High-Fiving-White-Guy on 1/26/2006 5:50 PM
Publicity, publicity, publicity! Good or bad will help him sell his book. If you don't believe that go read about Oprahs show today. Based on Gary's behavior why would we want to reward him with dollars? He has declared his side and it is not ours. He is the enemy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By bobo on 1/26/2006 5:53 PM
I believe in Darwinian mechanisms. If someone is willing to pay Gary to read what he has written, then Gary is entitled to their money, and the reader is entitled to what Gary has written.
They deserve each other.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By Cheap Bastard on 1/26/2006 9:34 PM
My favorite is that every link he has to his book credit his "Amazon Associates" account. I guess a few extra dollars here or there can't hurt...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By mhelburn on 1/26/2006 6:02 PM
Gary.. a very popular name for people born around 1945..for Gary Cooper, movie star... I can't believe this guy is older than 25. He is so rude and so much like Jeff Matthews.. Are you sure it isn't Jeffy.. with a new name.. a new identity..
Weiss would be better off to keep his mouth shut.. his ignorant statements won't encourage people to buy his books. He won't develop a following touting that it is good to break the securities laws. Whoosh.. that was his 15 minutes of flame!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By mfairview on 1/26/2006 6:33 PM
Bob, was gonna say it myself but someone else beat me to the punch. Gary's pathetic attempt at cheating Warhol is now riding on your coattails. I had no idea who this guy was until it came across your radar. For you to devote any time to him beyond what you have does him a favor. It's hilarious to see him pitch his book on his auditted blog. This guy once wrote for Business Week? Enough said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By browntrout on 1/26/2006 9:35 PM
I agree Bobo. Trout says time to flush. Gary has stunk up the place long enough. Down you go Gary. Hope you find your friends down there. Ahhhhh, doesn't that make you feel better already?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By weiss has no answers or proof on 1/26/2006 9:37 PM
He's smitten, Bobo. Hot and bothered. But he still can't explain why he can't seem to read beyond a 3rd grade level.
Even a fourth grader could read the NASAA transcript and see that the person that invited the DTCC to the conference was quoted as saying they did indeed invite the DTCC. But that's a diversionary red herring to draw attention away from the very strong possibility that the DTCC is legally screwed, isn't it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By Captspell on 1/26/2006 7:38 PM
Ah bunny man. Your good. Your very good. I'd dump him if I were you. I don't think that relationship is going anywhere.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By Captspell on 1/26/2006 7:41 PM
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By bobo on 1/26/2006 5:02 PM
I...I just feel so used....it's like he doesn't even notice me anymore....he never calls.....and I hear he's now seeing other bloggers....says his feelings have just changed, and that it's him, not me....
----------------------
Oh stop stop please..... I can't take it. Haven't laughed so hard in weeks. Nice way to lighten up the evening. Ha ha ha ha .....jeez.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By rtway on 1/26/2006 9:38 PM
This was your best so far,Bob. One notices after watching and listening to all these slime balls that are part of this corrupt venture, that there are so many similarities that they all have. Ability to lie under any conditions, ability to defraud under any conditions, constantly rant and rave about anything other than what the topic is. exercise a dialogue that would make Gangsta Rap sound like the bible. If you heard one, you pretty much heard them all, because they all rehearse from the same play book. Kind of makes you wonder how close are these rabid folks. Did they grow up together? Do they share the same DNA? Do they meet at the same place weekly and rehearse? One thing that is certainly common is that they put the dollar on a par far above love and civility. It almost seems like a brotherhood. Hmmmm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By Hop Along on 1/26/2006 9:54 PM
It is amazing! How can this guy sleep at night.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By Eric on 1/26/2006 9:55 PM
I wonder how much money it takes to get a person to lie like that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By bobo on 1/26/2006 10:02 PM
Eric: Not much, judging by the CATO/Abramoff revelations. Couple of grand, here and there. Not that I am saying our lad can command that kind of serious swag. He isn't syndicated in a few hundred papers, thus, if the laws of supply and demand hold....
I just hope that he's happy with all those other bloggers...they can never give him what I did........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By bombsaway55 on 1/27/2006 3:44 AM
Bobo: great commentary, as usual! One small item I would disagree with by other commenters (is that a word?) on this blog is I really don't believe your "discussions" with Gary will positively affect his book sales. I can't see anyone who is remotely familiar with naked shorting would be interested in a book that doesn't address it (?), and apparently this guy doesn't/can't/won't take the time to adequately respond to evaluations of portions he has proferred; I know I am not the least bit interested in wasting my money on the book (caveat: I'm pretty stingy with my money and reading time, so I may not be "representative" of the masses).
Now, about YOUR book.............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By InTheKnow on 1/27/2006 5:47 AM
I hear that there is a book, coming soon, called "The Midas Touch" that will blow the Weiss book out of the water! I'm told it's the real deal on naked shorting!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By InTheKnow on 1/27/2006 6:05 AM
A little hint as to what's to come from the book!
From an open letter by Rod Young to the American investor:
"In an article published by author James Cummins, former 15 year former SEC Enforcement Attorney Brent Baker was quoted “For years the SEC was unable to control the infamous ‘pump-and-dump’ schemes of stock market criminals across the country, and actually developed a culture that believed that illegal naked short selling may be a counterbalancing force to the pump-and-dump.” A stunning admission! "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By bobo on 1/27/2006 7:35 AM
Go read Cummins' blog under the guest blog section - I haven't read his book, but I am sure it lives up to or surpases the quality of his blog - and I can say exactly the same thing about Weiss...I will be buying one of the two books, and it won't be his...
link: http://www.thesanitycheck.com/BobsSanityCheckBlog/tabid/56/EntryID/45/Default.aspx
Location: BlogsBob O'Brien's Sanity Check Blog
Posted by: bobo 1/26/2006 2:57 PM
Author Gary Weiss has been at it again, issuing forth another insulting rant in which he accuses me of being a coward, of libeling him, etc. This from the guy who refers to me as the "spokesperson for the Baloney Brigade". The hypocrisy is not lost on me. In the interest of frank and open discourse, I am reprinting his little blurb below (under the theory of fair use), along with my comments – although frankly, any adult upright biped should be able to read this and understand what is going on without any prompting from me. So here is my open letter to Gary:
Gary:
I feel like we never talk any more, and that you just don't hear me when I try to express myself to you. How did we ever get to this ugly, awful place? Can't we patch things up, and get back to the way things might have been? I hope you will read my words below, and take them with the love that they are intended. I can't believe that you wrote what you did, so I'm going to go statement by statement. Try to keep up, dumbass. Ooops. I can't believe I said that. See how quckly all this poisons our relationship?
“BALONEY RE-UPDATE: As is standard practice with the Baloney Brigade, the group's chief spokesman, who cowers behind the fictional name "Bob O'Brien," responded to the posts in this blog, and perceptions (mostly inaccurate) of the contents of my book, with a variety of libelous personal attacks on me in his website. Among them was this gem:
"Yes folks, this is the world of professional journalism - Businessweek's best, who basically regurgitated a bunch of long cold stories about the mob on wall street and cobbled it together into a career, is high fiving cyber-trash in the same way that [deleted] and [deleted] did."
Gary. Sweetie. You seem testy. Don’t be. It is unbecoming of an author of your serious standing. Never let them see you sweat, ‘hmm ‘kay?
No cowering going on. None. So wrong.
And as to the "Baloney Brigade", I am not a card-carrying member – never got a form to fill out, nor was I elected its head, thus I can only presume that you are using that as some sort of insult – how unexpected, given your whining over libelous personal attacks. As to my perceptions about your oft-self-touted book, I’m afraid I have no perceptions, accurate or otherwise – my comments have been addressing your blog comments and selected outtakes cited in the NY Post. I honestly have exactly zero interest in your book’s contents, given what I have seen of your work thus far.
Now, I am of the opinion that you regurgitated a bunch of long-cold mob stories to cobble together a career, such as it is. I have seen no proof you didn’t. I suppose we could go back and see when the data on each story came to light, and see whether you broke it (versus regurgitating someone else's data), but frankly that's way more work than I'm prepared to do; so if you have hard evidence that I am in error in my beliefs, have at it – until then, I shall maintain my opinion, as thankfully, it requires no effort on my part.
My comment about "high-fiving cyber kooks" is accurate, as you have given noted “net nut” Tony Ryals space in your blog, and positive comment (Tony was spamming every site I ever visited last year with incorrect speculations that I am James Dale Davidson), as well as Cupandsaucer (who is the sole ID ever to have been banned from this blog for issuing forth insults and such, after several warnings to behave) – in my vernacular, "cyber kooks", who you have been rhetorically high-fiving, while censoring my comments. As well as many other civil, intelligent comments from other non-kooks. So I stand by that statement.
”This is lamentably typical of the Baloney Brigade. Since the anti-shorters have nothing more than repetitive arguments to advance their cause, they grow frustrated like little children and lash out when questioned -- but always cowering, using phony names like their mothers' skirts.”
Huh.
“Repetitive arguments” which you have been regrettably unable to counter with anything but name-calling, and an odd reliance upon your own declarative statements - as though they have the weight of fact. They don’t. We do not all share your overly-high opinion of your utterances, and certainly don’t assume that they are based on anything of tangible substance, absent supporting data - which you have been unable to supply.
As an example, I have repeatedly asked you to explain how taking money from an investor, and then not delivering the product he paid for, is anything but fraud.
You haven’t been able to do so.
You also haven’t been able to support your statement that illegal naked short selling is good – i.e. fraud is good - if it is used to counter other alleged fraud, like corporate malfeasance, or pump and dump scams.
You further have made statements to the effect of “it has been proven time and time again that naked short selling is good” – absent any proof that any such thing has ever been shown to be correct, much less proven time and time again.
You have also claimed the FOIA data is meaningless, as though you possess some proprietary mechanism for knowing what no other person outside of the DTCC and SEC knows (to whit, whether or not it is meaningless) without offering any explanation for your contention.
After carefully balancing all of this, it is safe to say that I think you are full of poop, and see no reason to modify that opinion.
Lest that seem unusually harsh and unfair, let’s offer the cheap seats at home a few examples of what does pass for “proof” in Gary-world, so we can appreciate where you are coming from. My favorite is from another, earlier blog, wherein you cite the DTCC’s recent PR release as some sort of evidence that I am an idiot, or a liar, or deluded in some unspecified way:
“This release is important so I'm excerpting from it at length, which hopefully the DTCC won't mind. Basically the Baloney Blitzkrieg has been discredited yet again -- not that it matters even a bit, as I will be explaining.... :”
Here we have yet more "Gary"(tm) insults, and the declaration that the “Baloney Blitzkrieg” has been discredited yet again – presuming that I am a member, and that “I/we” have ever been discredited in the past, and that this piece discredits “us” now. This is not the case, as we shall see in a second:
“Something stands out in that press release -- DTCC's exclusion. The DTCC is a staid and totally blameless organization that has had its name dragged through the mud by the brainless boobs of the Baloney Brigade, and knows more about short-selling mechanics than just about any other person or institution. Why was it excluded?
-------------
I see that the Baloney Blitzkrieg is hard at work trying to spin this DTCC press release, using the usual combination of smoke, mirrors and baloney. The shame is that no matter how many times the sheer idiocy of their allegations is exposed, they just plow on ahead.”
Gary, Babe, you really should have listened to your gut here, and trusted it. That jumped out at me, too. So much so that I looked up Dr. Trimbath’s comments from the NASAA meeting, and on page 46 saw where she told Ralph Lambiase, in a discussion with him, that she knew the DTCC had been invited to the forum, but declined to send a representative - which Ralph in no way negated or took issue with. That’s because they were invited, and the claim that they weren’t is a blatant falsehood.
Now, why would a veteran reporter like you buy Wall Street’s dissembling hook, line and sinker, while I, a rank amateur, checked it and discovered it to be inaccurate? Doesn’t that speak volumes as to the quality of what we can expect of your diligence, and color your declaration that the DTCC is totally blameless, as, well, meaningless, and intellectually lazy?
That is one of the reasons I won’t be buying your upcoming tome – missing something this obvious is just shoddy, IMO. Perhaps there is another reason that Businessweek’s ad revenues are down so drastically? Just a thought, if your performance here is typical of the breed…
Or how about the DTCC’s invention of statements from the NASD’s Cam Funkhauser, and their mis-statement as to what he actually said? Why was I able to discover that he didn’t say what the DTCC claims he did in that release, and you didn’t? Is that the sort of “smoke and mirrors” you're referring to? I’ll let you in on the magician’s trick, give you a peek behind the curtain: I took the time to read his statements, word for word, rather than credulously parroting the DTCC’s party line, as you did.
Now, when you say “spin”, are you referring to my proving that the DTCC’s release is, to put it charitably, highly inaccurate in a number of critical places, and that it makes false claims as to what regulators said? Is that what you are referring to as “spin”? Or are you referring to your own ignoring the falsehoods contained in the release, and hurling more insults, as “spin”? Or to the DTCC’s making false and misleading claims? Is that the “spin” to which you take such umbrage? Around here, we have a different word for it: the “truth”. You may need to look that up. Under “T”, not “S”.
You have censored me from responding to you because of an arbitrary rule you made up part of the way through our discourse: that you won’t have a discussion unless I provide my real name. This rule doesn’t apply to anyone else, and was only created once it became obvious that I was handing you your head.
Nobody is fooled into believing that it is anything but a transparent effort to evade being shown to be inadequately armed for this discussion – you have taken the position that you are a victim, and I am the victimizer, because I take advantage of the Internet’s anonymity - while you simultaneously allow every crackpot that can articulate a misspelled run-on sentence to have free rein on your blog. I don’t mind the insults, as they insult the intelligence of your readers more than they insult me, but frankly the phony, acrimonious hand-wringing is silly. Please stop. It is embarrassing to watch. Really.
I’ve saved your best for last, though:
“What's even more lamentable is that anyone takes seriously a movement whose principal spokesman doesn't have the integrity to use his real name as he slanders people. "O'Brien's" excuse is that he is acting on "advice of counsel." At first I thought it was baloney but now I realize that it makes sense. Any smart lawyer would advise a client not to attach his or her real name to a libel.
On that note, I think I'll take my leave of the Baloney Brigade for the time being. I'll provide updates as developments warrant, however.”
Where do I start? Gary, honey, libel and slander have different meanings - the giveaway is that they start with different letters. Words are funny that way. 'nuff said, no?
You claim that by expressing my opinion that you are a hack, who got much wrong W/R/T naked short selling, that I have slandered and libeled you, and yet you have offered no proof that you aren’t one – nothing factual – or that you haven’t gotten much of your data wrong, as with the DTCC piece. Thus, I maintain that my opinion is justified. That you do so while calling me names and attacking my character is both pathetically funny, as well as further support for my opinion. Given that you have offered us nothing but your own hot air as support for your positions,and given that your conclusions appear to be constructed on a precarious foundation of incorrect info, false logic, and non-facts, I am secure that my sentiment about your skill and research quality is adequate to the task.
As an aside, I note that you find it amusing that I would want to safeguard my anonymity – the irony, coming from you, who has written about the mob’s presence on Wall Street, is not lost on me. That you have ignored the threats that Dave Patch, Bud Burrell, and Wes Christian have received, speaks volumes. And further underscores the selective comprehension of data that has resulted in the profound lack of interest I have in reading your upcoming screed. I know you probably don’t care, and I’m sure that you believe that your average reader is far less bright than I am, thus they will be unable to catch on as quickly – you know your audience far better than I – and you are probably right. You would have to sort of depend on it, I would think, judging from your performance in this vignette.
Huh.
OK, I can see that this open "Dear John" letter isn't working as intended. Now I sound like I am annoyed, and I don't want to come off that way. Gary, let's try again, shall we?
Let's ask the audience - does anyone think I have gotten this wrong? Am I incorrect in my take on this? Am I being unfair to Gary, or do his arguments have some merit I have missed?
I have invited him to come to this blog, an uncensored forum wherein he can disabuse me of my incorrect notions, but he has chosen not to. He prefers his forum, where he can ignore what he likes, characterize difficult arguments which show him to be wrong as idiocy and craziness, and avoid fielding any questions for which he lacks convincing answers.
I would love for him to come out and play – it is one thing to insist you are right, stamping your feet and throwing a hyperbole-laden hissy fit, but it is quite another to actually prove it.
I’m not holding my breath.
Let's try going back to the letter format, now, and see if that is softer and gentler:
Gary, I hope that we can move past this difficult period, and find ourselves in a better and more peaceful place. I sense the dull black cloud of embittered rage that is spoiling your view of all the pretty flowers and easter eggs that are out there in the world, and I hope that you take this opportunity to put all this behind you. Whatever you decide, I'll be OK with, but don't say that I didn't try to make my innermost thoughts about our relationship known to you.
Your friend forever,
The Easter Bunny - AKA Bob O'Brien
XXOO
Copyright ©2006 Bob O'Brien
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments (22) Add Comment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By High-Fiving-White-Guy on 1/26/2006 4:57 PM
Bob- Time to give it up. You have done more to sell Gary's new book than anyone ever would for him even if they were paid. Now that you know how much research he has put into his new book, based on his comments; don't you think he should be sending a check to NCANS? I doubt even Oprah could have done a better job as evidenced by her show today.Oh and Tony thanks you also! I would follow Gary's lead and delete anything that does not mesh with your thinking here and then delete entire subjects like he is doing on his blog. The world will be a better place according to Gary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By bobo on 1/26/2006 5:02 PM
I...I just feel so used....it's like he doesn't even notice me anymore....he never calls.....and I hear he's now seeing other bloggers....says his feelings have just changed, and that it's him, not me....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By Chris on 1/26/2006 5:02 PM
You really should run for office, you have a way with words that captivate people. Why not invite Mr.Weiss into a live debate, perhaps on CFRN or maybe Businessjive so we can all hear how he's able to defend his statements in real time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By High-Fiving-White-Guy on 1/26/2006 5:13 PM
Chris- Gary spends his time editing out written material constantly. Can you imagine him trying to do this live on the air. I can hear him screaming: "Gradient, Rocker, Cramer tell me what to say now?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By Chris on 1/26/2006 5:24 PM
Thats why it should be live, if he believes in what he is saying it should come naturally, unless he's afraid to be confronted by someone like Mr. O'Brien.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By High-Fiving-White-Guy on 1/26/2006 5:50 PM
Publicity, publicity, publicity! Good or bad will help him sell his book. If you don't believe that go read about Oprahs show today. Based on Gary's behavior why would we want to reward him with dollars? He has declared his side and it is not ours. He is the enemy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By bobo on 1/26/2006 5:53 PM
I believe in Darwinian mechanisms. If someone is willing to pay Gary to read what he has written, then Gary is entitled to their money, and the reader is entitled to what Gary has written.
They deserve each other.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By Cheap Bastard on 1/26/2006 9:34 PM
My favorite is that every link he has to his book credit his "Amazon Associates" account. I guess a few extra dollars here or there can't hurt...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By mhelburn on 1/26/2006 6:02 PM
Gary.. a very popular name for people born around 1945..for Gary Cooper, movie star... I can't believe this guy is older than 25. He is so rude and so much like Jeff Matthews.. Are you sure it isn't Jeffy.. with a new name.. a new identity..
Weiss would be better off to keep his mouth shut.. his ignorant statements won't encourage people to buy his books. He won't develop a following touting that it is good to break the securities laws. Whoosh.. that was his 15 minutes of flame!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By mfairview on 1/26/2006 6:33 PM
Bob, was gonna say it myself but someone else beat me to the punch. Gary's pathetic attempt at cheating Warhol is now riding on your coattails. I had no idea who this guy was until it came across your radar. For you to devote any time to him beyond what you have does him a favor. It's hilarious to see him pitch his book on his auditted blog. This guy once wrote for Business Week? Enough said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By browntrout on 1/26/2006 9:35 PM
I agree Bobo. Trout says time to flush. Gary has stunk up the place long enough. Down you go Gary. Hope you find your friends down there. Ahhhhh, doesn't that make you feel better already?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By weiss has no answers or proof on 1/26/2006 9:37 PM
He's smitten, Bobo. Hot and bothered. But he still can't explain why he can't seem to read beyond a 3rd grade level.
Even a fourth grader could read the NASAA transcript and see that the person that invited the DTCC to the conference was quoted as saying they did indeed invite the DTCC. But that's a diversionary red herring to draw attention away from the very strong possibility that the DTCC is legally screwed, isn't it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By Captspell on 1/26/2006 7:38 PM
Ah bunny man. Your good. Your very good. I'd dump him if I were you. I don't think that relationship is going anywhere.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By Captspell on 1/26/2006 7:41 PM
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By bobo on 1/26/2006 5:02 PM
I...I just feel so used....it's like he doesn't even notice me anymore....he never calls.....and I hear he's now seeing other bloggers....says his feelings have just changed, and that it's him, not me....
----------------------
Oh stop stop please..... I can't take it. Haven't laughed so hard in weeks. Nice way to lighten up the evening. Ha ha ha ha .....jeez.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By rtway on 1/26/2006 9:38 PM
This was your best so far,Bob. One notices after watching and listening to all these slime balls that are part of this corrupt venture, that there are so many similarities that they all have. Ability to lie under any conditions, ability to defraud under any conditions, constantly rant and rave about anything other than what the topic is. exercise a dialogue that would make Gangsta Rap sound like the bible. If you heard one, you pretty much heard them all, because they all rehearse from the same play book. Kind of makes you wonder how close are these rabid folks. Did they grow up together? Do they share the same DNA? Do they meet at the same place weekly and rehearse? One thing that is certainly common is that they put the dollar on a par far above love and civility. It almost seems like a brotherhood. Hmmmm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By Hop Along on 1/26/2006 9:54 PM
It is amazing! How can this guy sleep at night.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By Eric on 1/26/2006 9:55 PM
I wonder how much money it takes to get a person to lie like that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By bobo on 1/26/2006 10:02 PM
Eric: Not much, judging by the CATO/Abramoff revelations. Couple of grand, here and there. Not that I am saying our lad can command that kind of serious swag. He isn't syndicated in a few hundred papers, thus, if the laws of supply and demand hold....
I just hope that he's happy with all those other bloggers...they can never give him what I did........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By bombsaway55 on 1/27/2006 3:44 AM
Bobo: great commentary, as usual! One small item I would disagree with by other commenters (is that a word?) on this blog is I really don't believe your "discussions" with Gary will positively affect his book sales. I can't see anyone who is remotely familiar with naked shorting would be interested in a book that doesn't address it (?), and apparently this guy doesn't/can't/won't take the time to adequately respond to evaluations of portions he has proferred; I know I am not the least bit interested in wasting my money on the book (caveat: I'm pretty stingy with my money and reading time, so I may not be "representative" of the masses).
Now, about YOUR book.............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By InTheKnow on 1/27/2006 5:47 AM
I hear that there is a book, coming soon, called "The Midas Touch" that will blow the Weiss book out of the water! I'm told it's the real deal on naked shorting!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By InTheKnow on 1/27/2006 6:05 AM
A little hint as to what's to come from the book!
From an open letter by Rod Young to the American investor:
"In an article published by author James Cummins, former 15 year former SEC Enforcement Attorney Brent Baker was quoted “For years the SEC was unable to control the infamous ‘pump-and-dump’ schemes of stock market criminals across the country, and actually developed a culture that believed that illegal naked short selling may be a counterbalancing force to the pump-and-dump.” A stunning admission! "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: My "Dear John" Letter to Gary Weiss By bobo on 1/27/2006 7:35 AM
Go read Cummins' blog under the guest blog section - I haven't read his book, but I am sure it lives up to or surpases the quality of his blog - and I can say exactly the same thing about Weiss...I will be buying one of the two books, and it won't be his...
link: http://www.thesanitycheck.com/BobsSanityCheckBlog/tabid/56/EntryID/45/Default.aspx
- I will not be a slave to or of death cults - n/b/k - NO QUARTER FOR CORRUPTION http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=3319
Join the InvestorsHub Community
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
