Craig's own press: the triumph of BS!

EVEN MORE: it is also not at all clear that the sale to ebay was not a disguised sellout D.

MORE: yes, some of that "change" was set aside for employees (and resulted in the first undisputed dilution of ebay's shares in craigslist) but it is not at all clear that all of it is accounted by the Employees' Shareholder Plan; some people have been saying that there was an early "investor" that still holds craigslist shares.

I'm always surprised how gullible and deferential these so called reporters are... so, he's done a bit of research! he knows craigslist is number 11th (not 7th)... he could not have known this if he would have just listened to Craig and Jim; I suppose that's more than plenty of others do but where are the issues? he's barely mentioning any and when he does it is so vaguely that he gives the impression that they are not issues at all -- he's actually quoting Craig/Jim in what looks like an effort to hide the issues... how ridiculous...

Delia

P.S. they guy also appears to be unable to count: if Craig owns 41% and Jim owns 26% there is good chunk of change unaccounted for (even if you know ebay owns more or less 25% -- under legal dispute at the moment); this would certainly be an issue when talking about having or not having soldout; hopefully the law suit will clear up some of these things, although craigslist has been trying to keep the truth away from the public, we should start hearing about legal developments soon...

P.S. it's all nice and dandy... right! D.