(Later Note - Dr. Byrne wrote a letter to Tim thanking him for his courteous interaction with his staff, as well as the assurance of fair and unbiased treatment...)
(NOTE - Since this was written, the Roddy Boyd email exchange was posted - I think the wording in that brief inquiry speaks for itself...)
It's not often that I find myself at a loss for words, but when I first read Mr. Timothy Mullaney’s set of questions addressed to Dr. Patrick Byrne, I was literally speechless.
Rarely do I see pure, undisguised venom directed at a CEO by a reporter, as clearly as these “questions” do – equally rarely do I see as many “when did you start beating your wife” type of interrogatives on one page – it is truly a virtuoso performance, but of a sort that is wildly unexpected, coming from the representative of a major financial periodical.
I have long maintained that there is a cadre of “financial journalists” beholden to the miscreant elements on Wall Street, chartered with attacking whoever is critical of those elements, or whichever company/person is the target du jour. Reading the questions, one can easily see how I arrive at that conclusion – it is absolutely, IMO, a shocking display of viciousness, with a naked agenda manifest in every statement and word.
In order to help you, dear reader, understand why this represents the sort of “reporting” that those critical of Wall Street are treated to on a regular basis, I have excerpted some of the questions, and will do a quick run-through of my observations, along with my responses. Some are intended to be humorous. Others aren’t, yet may be funny in spite of themselves. Dunno.
So here it goes, sequentially, through the email:
First, note that many of the questions are actually statements of a viewpoint (Byrne is a rat bastard, the company is a scam of some sort, the people working there are unqualified, he’s a marginally functional kook, etc.) followed by an interrogative, a la, “given that you are likely a child molester, do you think that it is wise to allow you to watch your nephews when the rest of the adults are out of the house?” Many of the questions make a declarative statement that is representative of an erroneous assumption, and then follow it with a ludicrous inquisition that is almost impossible to answer with a straight face. To whit –
“First topic: What went wrong in 2005?”
First problem - note that this assumes that something went wrong in 2005.
Now, I'm not privy to the numbers that OSTK is going to post, but given that Byrne has publicly stated that they expect between 60-100% top line growth per year (some years closer to 100%, some closer to 60%), and given that none of us know where they will come in, how can ANYONE assume at this point, with a straight face, that something “went wrong”? Wouldn’t it make more sense to wait until you actually knew the numbers before you made declarative assumptions? I guess that's the old fashioned way of doing things. I was curious, though, how he knew what he took for granted as being true. I mean, the year isn’t in yet, is it? Did I miss the memo? The press release where we know how the year went? Yes? No?
Keep in mind through all of this that any requests for forward-looking statements are a setup, and would violate SEC rules.
In the first section, he peppers his questions with assumptions about the first and second quarter, demanding to know who was to "blame" and how the company handles its internal affairs (which I won’t cover as the whole thing bores me to the point of narcolepsy), and then he moves on to the third quarter, when the IT implementation was an issue. That has been parsed and explained and de-constructed by countless analysts, bloggers and observers, and yet we are treated to a host of repetitive questions, some of which may in fact be legitimate, but many of which are, well, inappropriate, plain intrusive, and mean. For example:
“Where was Shawn Schwegman during this period? During the extended leave Patrick has described on The Motley Fool, who was standing in for the CIO? With regard to the account of Shawn having sold stock to buy a home immediately upon his return, some questions. A. Who was the woman? B. Did they get married? C. Are they still together? D. Can we review the timing of exactly when he sold the shares, and from where he contacted his broker? “
And so on – is Sean qualified, is he still on leave, when did he go on leave, etc. - everything but what Scott’s address is, and how he decorated his rumpus room - Country? Colonial? Urban moderne?
Last time I checked, the personal relationships of employees of a company are none of the press’ GD business. Whether Shawn wishes to have conjugal relations with an ewe, or has twin midget strippers hanging out at his place, or has a gay marriage to a basketball player, is kind of none of the reporter’s business, and has nothing to do with OSTK.
Ditto for the sale of stock – it is his to sell, unrestricted, to buy a house, to buy porn, to buy fast cars, to blow at the tables in Vegas, to give to orphans. His to do with as he pleases. Shawn isn’t an elected official accused of touchy touchy with his teen-aged intern. He is an employee of the company, who has a personal life, a brokerage account, and his own financial issues, which are his business, not the reporter’s - unless Businessweek is going to start being the, “Are Jennifer and Brad done for good?” publication about employees of public companies. Which may be an improvement, but that is another story…
Then there is more blah blah blah about the CIO role, when he left, what his status is, etc.
You can imagine Byrne's mental response reading this tripe:
“Golly, Timmy me boy, we have a trained ferret named David running IT now, and we put little tasty balls of gruel on the keys of the systems, and he runs about and makes algorithmic selections based upon appetite, and presumably both sensory and visual appeal of said chunks of best-unmentioned-in-any-more-detail food-like weasel treats. BTW, he just happened to be named David, it wasn’t an anti-Semitic slight, nor a slam at weasels by implying that they are on the same level as hedge fund managers, or anything…”
I digress.
Tim then asks for what is essentially inside information, a la, “Tell us, what will the company’s announced financials be?”
I’m serious.
“Well, Tim, here's a draft copy of what we are going to file with the SEC, but please don’t tell anyone we told you, ‘hmmm ‘kay? Promise? Pretty please? Because that would be kind of illegal and stuff, you know? But since it’s you, and you are such a swell fellah, well, here it is.”
Tim then continues to ask for what are essentially forward looking statements and more inside information:
“Everyone knows online retailers are strongly cash-flow positive in 4Q, and then pay bills in January. This is not exclusive at all to OSTK. What will be the cash position at 3/31/06, when the short-term exaggeration of cash flow has been flushed out?
How is your liquidity? Can you describe the Asian-currency instrument that is tying up the $70 million-plus, or direct me to the correct pages in your SEC filings that describe this instrument and when it matures? Preferably, do both. There have also been some fluctuations in the interest rate and terms of your Wells Fargo facility. Please explain, and do they indicate, taken together, that Overstock has become a stronger or a weaker credit?”
Everyone knows? Really?
I didn’t. But then I don't get out much.
I asked my paperboy, but he seemed uncertain, too. The lady at the dry cleaners seemed preoccupied with my change, but also seemed to draw a blank at this ubiquitous knowledge when pressed (no pun intended, really). So apparently everyone doesn’t know. But anyhow, enough of that – the best part is where he characterizes the positive cash flow that he presumes will be in Q4 as a short term exaggeration (isn’t life a short term exaggeration?) – discounting a huge positive – and then requests more inside info. Sorry, Tim, babe, no can on the forward statements do, ya know? Not only is Dr. Byrne not blessed with the gifts of clairvoyance and precognition, but if he was, he still isn’t allowed to tell you. Which you should know. Should. Everyone does...
We are then treated to more mundanities about the minutiae of the credit lines, debt, etc., before getting into the real slams. Try this one on for size:
"Seems as if marketing issues were a pretty consistent 2005 problem. Why? Some on the short side contend that the issue can be traced to having an underqualified executive running offline marketing. Without any reference to this person’s non-existent illicit past, why is someone whom Howard Lemcke describes as a former office manager for a small local business running such a critical function for a public company closing in on $1 billion in sales? "
Well, isn’t that special. First, we have a reference to not mentioning the illicit past of an executive, for whom no illicit past exists. Huh. Hey Tim. We will continue this without mentioning your non-frequenting of New Jersey Turnpike rest stop men’s rooms for illicit purposes, which we know that you don’t do, right? Anyone see how weird this gets in this section? Yes? No? Here’s how I would have responded:
“Let me explain how it works, Tim. We now leave most of the marketing to the hot dog guy and the car wash boy, as everyone knows that the folks that got us to a billion dollars probably aren’t qualified to get us to two, as that requires real entrepreneurs - which you wouldn’t know, given that being an attorney and a reporter don’t constitute actual business or operations experience…”
Anyone see the issue here? Tim cites short contentions about the person’s lack of qualifications, and ignores that the company has grown, in a highly competitive niche, at unheard of rates. If the marketing person is so unqualified, precisely how did they do so well for so long in this segment against “real professionals”? Just lucky? Good looks? Divine intervention?
Then more mundane blah blah about marketing dollars, and then another jaw dropper:
"Several analysts told me they did not know tech spending was going to rise so sharply in 05, though none accuses you of lying about it. Did you change your mind? When? When was 2005’s tech spend approved, and why didn’t sell-side analysts, several of whom work for firms that had banked for Overstock, know about it? And was it a tactical mistake, or anything worse, not to communicate that change in strategy or tactics once you decided on it?"
Huh? WTF? “Several analysts got their predictions wrong, and you, you lying piece of shit, misled them, although they wouldn’t say so” – isn’t that about what this says? Patrick, why didn’t you communicate your every day’s itinerary to these valuable folks, rather than running your company? How dare you.
Does this not start sounding ugly by now? In a clearly malevolent way? Is that just me? He goes on to talk about how several analysts blame 2005 – you know, the WHOLE YEAR, for which we don’t know the numbers yet – on travel, jewelry, software, etc.
Tim. Little question here. Would those analysts be analysts that are being sued by the company for manipulation and frontrunning? Not saying they are, but, heck, now that we crossed the bridge, is “analysts” your euphemism for, “short sellers and their choagies who are badly short the stock and will say or do anything to drive the price down?” We sort of want to know. Seems like a fair question to me.
The dominant theme through this whole section can best be shortened to “Short sellers say X and Y and Z are reasons that the company is poorly run and you are a rat bastard and your growth to almost a billion in sales with negligible losses when Amazon had lost a couple billion by that point in their growth is meaningless because you are so bad and dumb and kooky and stinky and a liar and poorly groomed and…and….and…”
That actually about covers this chunk, other than another series of ugly questions about an employee’s “brush with the law”, which isn’t explained, nor is it articulated how that brush would be relevant to OSTK, or in fact what it is, and which again seems oddly incongruent with an impartial reporter’s honest inquiries into a company’s operations. Oh, and there is the stunning claim that Byrne “missed” some analyst’s “forecasts”, and the jawdropping question of whether, by missing this analyst’s forecasts, he shouldn’t really be fired.
Tim, honey, do you realize that analysts are outside parties with their noses pressed up against the glass, trying to figure out what is going on, and that because they come in too high or too low has nothing to do with anything other than the analyst’s belief system? Or put another way, we recently saw that analysts were routinely tools of investment banking arms, and had exactly zero credibility with anyone (for good reason) – why, precisely, should the largest individual shareholder and the guy that grew the company to almost a billion be fired (and by whom?) because some analyst got his numbers wrong and Byrne “missed” them – not Byrne’s numbers, but the analyst’s? And this remarkable bit of venom spraying concludes with a peppering of innuendo about who is running the company, implying that Patrick is incapable of doing so – based on nasty things that his competitors and short sellers say! Here’s the exchange:
"What does that say about management and control? Are you aware of any public company that has done that in recent years without management getting fired? Why shouldn’t you be fired, other than your ownership position in OSTK? Why has the board not insisted on better performance?
What was the purpose or meaning of the board changes? How much time is Jack Byrne spending at OSTK? Who reports to him? What are his functions as non-executive chairman of the board? Competitors suggest Jack is running the company’s day to day operations in tandem with Jason Lindsey. Please sort out who is doing what, and how much time Patrick is devoting to the Rocker litigation, the NCANS and related matters. Was Patrick, in essence, relieved of his CEO duties as some believe?"
Tim. Sweety. Some believe that Elvis visits them at night, and helps the aliens abduct them for experiments. Some believe that the world is flat, and that there was no holocaust. Some believe that no naked short selling or market manipulation exists on Wall Street, in spite of the last two hundred years of its history. There are many wild beliefs out there. Is it really appropriate to demand comment on every half-baked idiocy you encounter – I mean, where do you draw the line?
And since you asked, are you, Tim, familiar with any pure play competitors to Amazon that have grown to almost a billion dollars and only lost less than a hundred mil getting there? Any names pop up? No? Hmmm. If this sucks so badly, why aren't there examples of those that have done better?
Tim’s words speak for themselves, in my opinion, so further dissection of this section is beating a thoroughly dead horse.
The next section starts off in a reasonable tone, and then degrades into another attack session – requesting insight into blog rumors about LBO strategy, how they would fund that, etc. He then goes on to ask about some reinsurance firm, and sort of finishes off with a flourish, asking how Byrne is going to rebuild confidence with sell side analysts.
My imagined Byrne response would be:
“Well, Tim, while I would love to share my every strategic thought on how to run my company and what we may or may not do, I was thinking that we could eliminate the middle man and I could just send any interested hostile takeover raiders, my competitors, and the short sellers, a detailed power point presentation as to what we are considering, how we would fund it, and what probability curves you should assign to blog rumors and short seller gossip. Instead, after rolling breathlessly on the floor laughing, we elected to politely decline giving you any response to one of the silliest series of off-point, assumptive questions in recent memory. As to how to rebuild confidence with sell-side analysts, that implies that we have lost their confidence, or more precisely, that we ever had their confidence, which given their stance, is unlikely. I actually could care less what these scum-sucking parasites think, and have advised small investors to steer clear of the stock until it isn’t being illegally manipulated anymore, and the institutions that know me use the sell-side analyst statements when they run out of toilet paper, so I’m afraid I don’t really have a plan to do whatever you think I should – no offense to scum, scum suckers, or parasites intended…”
It's probably good that I don’t run a large, rapidly growing public company, huh?
THE REALLY GOOD STUFF
The next section is where it really gets good. First, Tim runs through the short interest, and immediately garbles the company’s position on short sellers, the difference between illegal market manipulators and legal short sellers, and assertions the company has made:
"1. Let’s review numbers. Overstock has 19 million shares outstanding. The float appears to be 10 million shares. According to Nasdaq, the short position is 7.1 million shares. Why does Overstock believe that it is necessary to violate securities laws to short the shares. Why is a short seller who says “19 million shares, 10 million float, 7 million short, what’s the problem?” incorrect? Are these numbers incorrect? I believe I recall reading an assertion by PMB, though offhand I do not recall where, that the company knew in detail who owned its shares, who was allowing their shares to be borrowed and who was not, and that the then-existing position was impossible. Please review what you know and whether I correctly remember this statement, and what basis you might have for making such an assertion.
2. I’ll ask an open-ended question more generally…Why do you think shorts—and which ones – have violated Regulation SHO? Take all the time you need with this one; I want to understand your basis for this in detail, whether I end up devoting much space to it or just a little."
Tim. Follow along. OSTK never said that it is necessary to violate securities laws to short the shares. Byrne has said that he has no problem with legal short selling. He has a big problem with illegal market manipulation involving naked short selling, which is his big deal. His presentation focused on the impossibility that the shares trading in the marketplace are legitimately shorted given the numbers, and to test that, he and his dad and brother bought a ton of shares on different days through different brokers – NOT ONE OF WHICH WAS DELIVERED within a month of when they bought. That outcome was predicted by the hypothesis that none of the trading is legitimate shares, and after testing it multiple times, the hypothesis has considerable weight. It is noteworthy that no reporter has reported this. Not one. The CEO and Chairman buy hundreds of thousands of shares in the open market, not a single share is genuine/delivered per the rules, and there is COMPLETE SILENCE FROM THE FINANCIAL PRESS AND THE MEDIA.
Why do you think that is?
Tim then goes on to ask about the Byrnes' not being able to get their shares, and asking to be put in touch with folks that can confirm that – ignoring the email exchanges that have been posted as part of Bob O’Brien’s Sanity Check for a month. Which brings him to me, and the by now famous question - Who's Bob O'Brien?:
"4. Who is Bob O’Brien? Is he really a penny-stock artist affiliated with Richard Mellon Scaife? Are you at all concerned that this association hurts Overstock’s reputation or credibility? Can you supply his contact information?"
The only person that has ever been dim enough to imply that I am a penny stock scammer affiliated with Mellon Scaife is an unbalanced message board clogger who couldn’t be mistaken for someone sane for a split second. It really speaks to Tim’s credibility (such as it is at this point) that he even gives this the time of day, but given his credulous parroting of other absurdities as though they are fact, it’s not surprising. He must have missed the NY Post’s repeated articles speculating that I am a Nevada businessman (then again, does anyone really know anyone that actually reads the Post?) I would have thought he would have caught that, though, based on my NUMEROUS BLOGS on the topic and the FULL PAGE ARTICLES and such, and his deep intellectual interest, and all.
Perhaps my expectations are too high. Blame my mother.
I suppose that his tremendous investigative reporting acumen doesn’t extend to being able to find my email, either, which is cleverly hidden on both the NCANS.net website as well as the NFI-Info site, and the Sanity Check blog. Tut tut, it’s all a mystery wrapped in an inscrutable enigma – Tim, vato, yo, here it is: NCANS.mgr@gmail.com - write it down.
But wait, there is much more:
"6. What is your basis for:
a. Asserting on Bloomberg that “some of these officials are mobsters”? Please explain also the remark about a body being found on you.
b. Asserting that 10 to 15 million shares of Overstock have been counterfeited? By whom? How do you know? Have you seen any forged certificates?
c. Asserting that journalists accept assignments from short sellers?
d. Asserting that Jim Cramer is an undisclosed investor in Rocker Partners?
e. Asserting that “a master criminal from the 1980s” is coordinating an attack on Overstock? Is this Michael Milken? Why does Bob O’Brien appear to think so, judging from his postings?
f. Saying that you are afraid of the Israeli mafia? Have you received any threats? If so, describe. (Note: I have seen an excerpt of PMB’s remarks, but have not yet listened to the CFR webcast.) Or is this a more general observation that society should fear crime? If so, how is it even remotely related to securities violations surrounding OSTK shares? Do you have any expectation that
g. Asserting that Overstock would dominate the mid-priced diamond market? "
Where do I even begin?
First, everyone knows that Cramer met Rocker, the largest individual investor in Thestreet.com, and a former General Partner at the firm where he used to have office space, once, in a grocery store. He said so on OSTK’s Q3, 2004 CC. Second, are you really serious about the “reporters accepting assignments from short sellers” question? I mean do you doubt it, or are you asking what proof he has? I’m sure many are wondering where you got the bright idea for this series of questions, for instance – I know am.
As to forged certificates, puhleeese, read this site for a while and you will learn all about the new way to counterfeit stock electronically – no need for bulky and inconvenient forged certificates. That is sooo 60’s. As to asking Patrick why I think Milken is the master mind, that mis-states that I think he is, and assumes that Patrick knows why I think what he mis-states me as thinking. Again, the classic declarative fallacy technique we have seen throughout this masterpiece.
Then further absurdities about why PB fears the Israeli mafia – did he ever say that anywhere? I'm not a Byrne gadfly, and haven't committed his every utterance to memory, but that one escapes me. But let's say it was true - gee, Tim, the Israeli Mob is well known as closely linked to the Russian Mob, who are not particularly nice fellows - books have been written about it. Their fingerprints are all over the naked short selling game, from Dr. Dr.’s involvement in Sedona and Operation Bermuda Short, to the Elgindy case, to money laundering through Bank of New York – go read some Bud Burrell for more on that. Anyone that disputes that the mob has a presence on Wall Street should spend a little time at his blog, and with Google. Then again, if email addresses prominently displayed on web sites gives one trouble…
We then get some ancient history about Bethany brought up, when Patrick lost his temper with her in an email exchange. Yawn. Then we get some more leading questions about Patrick and NCANS…
"8. How much time does PMB devote to NCANS, the litigation and related matters, including media appearances. He has acknowledged financially supporting NCANS; how much has he spent? Is it a distraction from work?
9. May I have a phone number or e-mail address for Mr. O’Brien and for Mary, whose last name escapes me, from NCANS.
10. There are not more questions about Gradient in part because I’ve read the filings posted on your site and understand your basis for those specific allegations.
11. It appears from Bloomberg’s summaries of SEC filings that the top 35 holders own 99%+ of OSTK shares. If Bob O’Brien and NCANS believe so strongly that you have been wronged by the short side, have they bought any?"
Golly, I wonder if Patrick can do multiple things at one time? Or the team of six law firms might be doing the heavy lifting on the lawsuit? Or that NCANS, which is a website and grassroots shareholder organization with its own webmasters, manages to do so without his constant involvement? The money questions have been asked and answered in multiple interviews, which I presume he didn’t read, so I won't belabor those.
We are then treated to a second request for the easy to find contact info for me, and Mary, whose last name is also sneakily hidden in about every page of the court filing he claims to have read…. It ends with a request for information on the private holdings of NCANS members – Mary’s is known due to the LAWSUIT she is filing. Again, he missed that. As to my holdings, none of your business, Tim.
But now my favorites:
"Section IV. Just for the Record…
1. How is PMB’s health? In comparing old pictures of PMB to more recent ones, a senior BW editor – i.e. not me – noted what appeared to be a significant weight gain that occurred within the last two years. Is this correct? If so, is it a function of stress?
3. Is PMB manic depressive? Has he ever sought care or diagnosis for any mental incapacity? Is he on any psychoactive medications of any kind? (I mean no offense, and this is no more intrusive than Pat’s own public discussion of whether he uses illegal drugs)."
Ha ha ha ha ha.
"Hey, is Patrick a fat f*ck because he is a junkie, an alcoholic, or mentally ill?"
Very subtle. No offense taken. How could the CEO of a publicly-traded company get the wrong idea by this tone or interrogative? I’m sure that Warren Buffett or Bill Gates get that one all the time. I know that the line of questioning is perfectly appropriate, and know that Patrick’s cover shot for GQ won’t be harmed by our discussing it. I'm sure Patrick would have written a personal email to you about it, but his 9 inch fingernails probably interfere with prolonged use of the keyboard, and it distracts him from maintaining his fetal position in the corner, where he is usually keening to himself or muttering, "twinkies, twinkies and milk, yum yum!"
All kidding aside, Tim, Patrick’s weight gain has an interesting, yet benign, explanation, which the readers will probably find fascinating:
1) He is consuming quite a few calories as he prepares for his next big project, which is a self-produced film tribute to Jerry Lewis, for which he has already shot all the "skinny" scenes, in the spirit of Tom Hanks in “CastAway”.
2) He is not burning as many calories as he consumes for the role.
Now, rumors have long circulated on blogs that Patrick is suiting up every evening in a clown costume, and terrorizing the children of SLC with his paint-fume huffing/tequila-and-Percocet-binge rampages down Main Street (and haven't we all been there at some time in our life?). I would like to take the opportunity to put that one to rest. It isn’t true. At least, I don’t think so. I also heard that Patrick is considering going into counseling for the mental anguish caused by dealing with pinheaded reporters and crooked hedge fund minions, and that further, it makes him kinda hungry, which he can only suppress by washing down Class IV pharmaceuticals with Glenfiddich, usually from a gay towel boy's sneaker at the bathouses. But I wouldn’t print that.
Because we are all only interested in the truth, right?
Here’s some more Tim:
"3. Why is Jim Cramer referring e-mails from NCANS supporters to his lawyers? Has any counsel for Cramer contacted OSTK or PMB about pending or threatened defamation claims? E-mail trails I have read include Cramer asserting he may have a claim against OSTK or OSTK defenders at NCANS. Are these e-mails genuine? (I’m calling JJC as well).
4. Mark Cuban, asked in jest if he would trade PMB for Ron Artest, even up, responded in part: “No. Ron Artest knows what his issues are and takes medication.” Please comment. We know about Mr. Cuban’s short position in OSTK, which he puts at 20,000 shares."
Good question about Cramer referring emails to his lawyer - maybe he feels that he isn't doing enough to keep the NY legal profession in Maybachs, and wants to do his own small part to help out? Maybe the in-house counsel to Thestreet.com was tossing business cards into a hat when Cramer walked by, and he decided to mess with him?
And NCANS supporters? Huh? I think he means Dave Patch? Nobody has contacted NCANS, who has no role in that interaction, about it. I presume he is referring to the emails in which Cramer’s shyster claims it is all a dirty lie, and that his pristine reputation has been tarnished by Dave’s article?
That is all available on Dave’s site, not NCANS. How would Patrick or the OSTK IR guy be expected to know whether they are genuine?
Last I heard Dave was asking about some discrepancy between the form 4’s, and digging into the details of some hedge funds' purchases in advance of the IPO. That’s all I heard. Don’t even know if it is accurate. Dave? Do you know anything about this?
BTW, Mark and Cramer are invited to come on TheSanityCheck.com whenever they would like to debate naked short selling, and whether it is "all in our heads" – any new readers would be well advised to go to the Getting Started section to review the mountain of evidence and research materials that show that it isn’t.
What Does It All Mean, Or Does It Mean Anything?
In conclusion, it is an eye-opener to see the tone and treatment that Dr. Byrne receives from certain segments of the press and the media – one could easily forget that this is a cancer survivor, a guy that ran companies for Buffett, who has built his own to almost a billion in sales this year, who has bicycled across the US multiple times, and who has single-handedly taken on Wall Street and the SEC over illegal trading practices - at great personal cost.
I applaud Dr. Byrne’s making this little questionnaire public, especially given that his emails are made public on a regular basis. We don’t often get the benefit of seeing how a fair and balanced press works – it is always a treat and restorer of our faith in the media to get an up-close view.
I couldn’t make any of this up if I tried.
Well, all right. I did make up the part about Jerry Lewis, and about the clown outfit.
But the French think the man is a genius.
And I hate clowns.