MORE: It's kind of sad to think I was the only one paying attention... (and I dread having to listen to that old stuff again -- it was plenty boring the first time around...): how can it be possible that people making a living by writing about craigslist miss crucial things... like David, where does he get off claiming Craig owns 75% of craigslist when the evidence is strongly against it...? And no reaction when people point out the problems with that... that must be nice, keep churning BS and keep getting paid for it (whether people notice or not...) -- I'm thinking less of webpronews as a result.... ("pro"???) D.
anybody remember a podcast/speech/interview where Craig said his shares of crigslist went under 50% when he made Jim CEO? (I hope it's still out there... it hasn't been removed or something...)
P.S. ohh... and another thing... D.