(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.

new fees = progress... for the shareholders?

re: "As is usually the case when fees are introduced or raised, Craigslist is presenting this change as progress."

Hi, Michael!

I would have looked into that claim: what happens with that money? -- it appears to go straight into Craig&Co's pockets instead of being used to provide customer service and inprovements...

Delia