MORE: KATHARINE MIESZKOWSKI Nonprofit to Craigslist: Keep Your Money (http://nyti.ms/bbfOsk) yep! that's what I thought... (http://bit.ly/d4NOuk) 10:12 PM May 2nd via web
Twitter:
NYT's Brad Stone dares look at it from both sides *for once*&Jim Buckmaster blasts him for it -prior suck-ups forgotten http://bit.ly/aUuu04 17 minutes ago via web
ok, Jim! so the prostitution $ doesn't go in the Craigslist Charitable Fund or *does* it? -grantees would need to know http://bit.ly/9gBYMV 12 minutes ago via web
..does Jim Buckmaster think people are going to believe that craigslist is making that kind of $ from barely legal massage ads and the like? 10 minutes ago via web
or that the fact that others are doing it also is a legitimate excuse? he would do well to remember the CL feedback speeding ticket analogy 3 minutes ago via web
Showing posts with label Brad Stone. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brad Stone. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
yet again, is craigslist facilitating prostitution?
EVEN MORE
MORE: Twitter yet again, is craigslist facilitating prostitution? http://bit.ly/dmJaLO let me know what you think! ~Delia 7:09 PM Apr 26th via web
also are Craig Newmark & Jim Buckmaster profiting from prostitution although they vowed not to keep the money? certainly looks like it! ~D. 7:15 PM Apr 26th via web
again, NYT's Brad Stone comes up with a "friendly"-towards-craigslist title "Sex Ads Seen Adding Revenue to Craigslist" -- really, now? that's a fair characterization of the issue? *lol* still, with some exceptions(e.g. the number of places where craigslist is charging has been creeping up for a long time -- you *have to* say that so people can understand what's going on) he somehow manages to give a fairly balanced account. But the ending paragraph is just bizarre... looks like he just has to compliment Craig& Jim somehow and just doesn't care that it's awkward at best...
Delia
MORE: Twitter yet again, is craigslist facilitating prostitution? http://bit.ly/dmJaLO let me know what you think! ~Delia 7:09 PM Apr 26th via web
also are Craig Newmark & Jim Buckmaster profiting from prostitution although they vowed not to keep the money? certainly looks like it! ~D. 7:15 PM Apr 26th via web
again, NYT's Brad Stone comes up with a "friendly"-towards-craigslist title "Sex Ads Seen Adding Revenue to Craigslist" -- really, now? that's a fair characterization of the issue? *lol* still, with some exceptions(e.g. the number of places where craigslist is charging has been creeping up for a long time -- you *have to* say that so people can understand what's going on) he somehow manages to give a fairly balanced account. But the ending paragraph is just bizarre... looks like he just has to compliment Craig& Jim somehow and just doesn't care that it's awkward at best...
Delia
Saturday, August 22, 2009
New York Times reference to SC AG v. craigslist
MORE: Twitter:
New York Times reference to SC AG v. craigslist: just sloppy or intentionally misleading? http://tiny.cc/EBJvtprior link; craigslist expands 25% but 'it is conceivable' that Craig has no idea! --right, Susan!he's busy twittering to Squirrel and such
...
just sloppy or intentionally misleading?
Brad,
Your story about the SC AG is not up to date -- I find that linking to it (in the first line of this article) without mentioning the current developments misleads the readers.
Delia
(http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/craigslist-expands-coverage-of-cities-by-25-percent/#comment-313987)
New York Times reference to SC AG v. craigslist: just sloppy or intentionally misleading? http://tiny.cc/EBJvtprior link; craigslist expands 25% but 'it is conceivable' that Craig has no idea! --right, Susan!he's busy twittering to Squirrel and such
...
just sloppy or intentionally misleading?
Brad,
Your story about the SC AG is not up to date -- I find that linking to it (in the first line of this article) without mentioning the current developments misleads the readers.
Delia
(http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/craigslist-expands-coverage-of-cities-by-25-percent/#comment-313987)
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
(three times in a row) The New York Times misses it...*again*...
MORE: most comments appear clueles but not all...
e.g. (5th comment) Lou:" It appears that plain and simple Buckmaster and Newmark have attempted to dilute the interest of eBay, possibly to increase their share of any dividend, profit interest, or proceeds of sale of the company at the expense of eBay and eBay’s shareholders".
...
no mention of the first (uncontested) dilution of ebay's share to just above 25% in 2005 (one year AFTER the 2004 purchase by ebay) or the fact that ebay now says they bought 28.4% back in 2004 while craigslist/Craig has been assuring people it was ONLY 25%... D.
e.g. (5th comment) Lou:" It appears that plain and simple Buckmaster and Newmark have attempted to dilute the interest of eBay, possibly to increase their share of any dividend, profit interest, or proceeds of sale of the company at the expense of eBay and eBay’s shareholders".
...
no mention of the first (uncontested) dilution of ebay's share to just above 25% in 2005 (one year AFTER the 2004 purchase by ebay) or the fact that ebay now says they bought 28.4% back in 2004 while craigslist/Craig has been assuring people it was ONLY 25%... D.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
(ownership of craigslist) Craig's story blows up...
EVEN MORE: notice Jim's "hostile takeover" inuendo... with no basis given... D.
MORE: corrected prior mistakes (left the Forbes link in just so it makes some sense...: "Ebay holds a minority ownership interest stake of 28.4% in craigslist"[my emphasis]; this clearly implies this is the percentage ebay currently holds, AFTER the dilution if that's what happened... Jim is vague, ambiguous and melodramatic again... without giving any facts whatsoever... just take a look at Jim's "response" -- in the addendum, in the body of the entry -- to the one relevant question in the comments: did they dilute ebay's shares? "To be perfectly clear, Ebay’s stake in craigslist has not been unfairly diluted as they have claimed." ---> not at all clear... all he's saying is that ... they didn't do it unfairly... which is for the court to decide... the question had been if they diluted the shares... not if they acknowledge they did it unfairly... Alexander Muse: " Did you dilute the minority shareholders? ") D.
ERRATA (please read the comments!) :
Hi, Anonymous!
I tracked down the ebay release just before seeing your comment. (I initially thought Forbes was reliable enough as a source...my bad!) but anyways... the contradiction remains: craigslist claimed ebay acquired only 25% of craigslist in 2004, ebay says it was 28.4%... right after the ebay acqusition Craig specifically said ebay had ONLY 25 %... this core contradiction remains regardless of the details of the dilution...
Delia
MORE: ok, I better go to bed... (sorry if it was a bit confusing -- I just tried very hard to be as fair as possible -- it should be reasonably clear by now... let me know if it's not... thanks!) D.
STILL MORE: Craig retold the 25% story less than a month ago to Sarah Lacy... (0.52 time mark: Sarah:"so ebay owns 25% of craigslist..." Craig: "yes") --> ebay says their shares got diluted by more than 10%. So how could have ebay possibly had 25% in March? NOT strictly impossible but it appears very, very improbable... (they would have had to start with 25% in August of 2004, as Craig said, recently acquire more -- Craig's been telling his story unchanged since 2004 -- than get diluted to 25% or quickly sell the acquired amount... just in time for Craig's interview... ) D.
EVEN MORE: the Chron appears to be so gullible that it makes craigslist's words fit the facts... after the fact --> "In August 2004, eBay acquired a 28.4 percent stake in Craigslist when it bought shares from a former employee" (beginning of 8th paragraph) -- if they would have bothered to check they would have seen that was not what Craig said.... they would have also noticed the discrepancy between 25% and 28.5%
MORE: The New York Time's story on the topic is, again, surprisingly shallow... D.
... and Owen's story sounds even more plausible (that Phillip Knowlton was forced to sell because Craig and Jim were squeezing him out by diluting his shares): ebay is charging that craigslist has been illegally diluting ebay's shares...
Delia
P.S. surprisingly, people -- even Owen -- don't seem to realize that ebay holding 28.4% shares in craigslist (1st sentence of 2nd paragraph) contradicts Craig's story. He said the craigslist former employee sold 25% to ebay -- Craig was also specifically asked on the ebay and craigslist forum if he sold any of his shares to ebay at the time... he said no... so... how did ebay end-up with more than 25% of craigslist? Did Craig lie or did someone else, such as Nancy Melone, also sell shares to ebay? if so... did she do it at the same time? (again, that would mean Craig lied) or later on?
(Mozila help: (ownership of craigslist) Craig's story blows up... )
MORE: corrected prior mistakes (left the Forbes link in just so it makes some sense...: "Ebay holds a minority ownership interest stake of 28.4% in craigslist"[my emphasis]; this clearly implies this is the percentage ebay currently holds, AFTER the dilution if that's what happened... Jim is vague, ambiguous and melodramatic again... without giving any facts whatsoever... just take a look at Jim's "response" -- in the addendum, in the body of the entry -- to the one relevant question in the comments: did they dilute ebay's shares? "To be perfectly clear, Ebay’s stake in craigslist has not been unfairly diluted as they have claimed." ---> not at all clear... all he's saying is that ... they didn't do it unfairly... which is for the court to decide... the question had been if they diluted the shares... not if they acknowledge they did it unfairly... Alexander Muse: " Did you dilute the minority shareholders? ") D.
ERRATA (please read the comments!) :
Hi, Anonymous!
I tracked down the ebay release just before seeing your comment. (I initially thought Forbes was reliable enough as a source...my bad!) but anyways... the contradiction remains: craigslist claimed ebay acquired only 25% of craigslist in 2004, ebay says it was 28.4%... right after the ebay acqusition Craig specifically said ebay had ONLY 25 %... this core contradiction remains regardless of the details of the dilution...
Delia
MORE: ok, I better go to bed... (sorry if it was a bit confusing -- I just tried very hard to be as fair as possible -- it should be reasonably clear by now... let me know if it's not... thanks!) D.
STILL MORE: Craig retold the 25% story less than a month ago to Sarah Lacy... (0.52 time mark: Sarah:"so ebay owns 25% of craigslist..." Craig: "yes") --> ebay says their shares got diluted by more than 10%. So how could have ebay possibly had 25% in March? NOT strictly impossible but it appears very, very improbable... (they would have had to start with 25% in August of 2004, as Craig said, recently acquire more -- Craig's been telling his story unchanged since 2004 -- than get diluted to 25% or quickly sell the acquired amount... just in time for Craig's interview... ) D.
EVEN MORE: the Chron appears to be so gullible that it makes craigslist's words fit the facts... after the fact --> "In August 2004, eBay acquired a 28.4 percent stake in Craigslist when it bought shares from a former employee" (beginning of 8th paragraph) -- if they would have bothered to check they would have seen that was not what Craig said.... they would have also noticed the discrepancy between 25% and 28.5%
MORE: The New York Time's story on the topic is, again, surprisingly shallow... D.
... and Owen's story sounds even more plausible (that Phillip Knowlton was forced to sell because Craig and Jim were squeezing him out by diluting his shares): ebay is charging that craigslist has been illegally diluting ebay's shares...
Delia
P.S. surprisingly, people -- even Owen -- don't seem to realize that ebay holding 28.4% shares in craigslist (1st sentence of 2nd paragraph) contradicts Craig's story. He said the craigslist former employee sold 25% to ebay -- Craig was also specifically asked on the ebay and craigslist forum if he sold any of his shares to ebay at the time... he said no... so... how did ebay end-up with more than 25% of craigslist? Did Craig lie or did someone else, such as Nancy Melone, also sell shares to ebay? if so... did she do it at the same time? (again, that would mean Craig lied) or later on?
(Mozila help: (ownership of craigslist) Craig's story blows up... )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)