just to clarify this: what did you mean by “wiggle room?” and did you mean that was acceptable to you? (that’s Seth’s interpretation but it’s unclear to me)

going back to Jon’s post (where it came into the discussion)

“Who did it hurt when Hillary Clinton said in 2006 that she intended to fill out her second Senate term? White lies, my friend.”

and your response: “it’s different to leave wiggle room — e.g. “intend” — versus a flat “I’m not leaving” statement.”

it seems to me that Jon was correct, if Hillary Clinton said she intended something when that was not the case, she lied… an I’m-not-leaving statement would have been just a more emphatic lie…

Delia

Delia

P.S. you are probably just tired, Seth… let’s give it a rest… D.

1) Craig sold shares to eBay then cooked up a story to blame it all on an employee
versus
2) The employee sold the shares as part of complicated business deal, not to Craig’s liking (though Craig may have eventually gotten some money once removed)

Then I find #2 much more plausible over #1. Note neither covers him with glory.

I don’t consider “sharp businessman” to mean “never loses”, more like “tries to wheel and deal, make sure to count your spoons”.

I hope you’d grant I outlined a plausible scenario where his statements could both be less than totally transparent and yet not complete fiction.

It seems to me that you *assumed* from the outset that Craig’s story was true. I don’t do that… I just read the thing… and if it’s way out there…(like in this case) … I usually have a good laugh and move on. You also use “believe” a lot — which suggests you are taking a leap of faith. And you contradict yourself:”All in all, I’d guess Craig was out-maneuvered” “I’m not sure what I’m supposed to draw from this (…), other than Craig is in fact a sharp businessman.” But don’t worry about it! (you are certainly not the only one)

Delia

I believe it’s true that Craig did not want the 25% sale to eBay. He doesn’t need the money.

I also believe that Knowlton figured out to do something that Craig thought he wouldn’t be able to do.

This doesn’t make Knowlton a villian to me, instead it seems he was clever. All in all, I’d guess Craig was out-maneuvered. I’m not sure what I’m supposed to draw from this in terms of lying, other than Craig is in fact a sharp businessman who projects an awww-shucks persona as I said above.

No, Dan said “it’s different to leave wiggle room — e.g. “intend” — versus a flat “I’m not leaving” statement”
That strikes me as more technicality in this context. I mean, the guy is obviously thinking “If the deal goes through, I’ll leave, but we don’t know if the deal will go through, so I’m not going to annoy my current employer right now”. But it would take an extraordinarily fearless and candid person to say that on the record.

Again, don’t focus so much on the trees that you miss the forest. And I wouldn’t go off into speculation: just look at what Craig said –> if this makes sense to you without taking a ridiculous large leap of faith… I think you are very gullible… (Owen’s story is not even needed for this test)

Delia

P.S. as to what Dan said re:”wiggle room”, if I understood it right that meant avoidance (not dissembling and definitely not straight out lying…) D.

But Dan’s already articulated his standard about “wiggle room”, so I suppose Craig can get a pass there. I suppose he (Craig) could have meant something like “I *thought* that Knowlton would never be able to manage to sell given all the restrictions in his contract, but I was wrong” (which is worth a chuckle, but actually then is true!)

By the way Dan, isn’t it unfair to pillory a guy based on second-hand paraphrases? How do you know that his actual statements don’t contain the all-important wiggle, and is that really what it’s all about?
[

Hmm …

cnewmark.com/2004/08/ebay_and_craigs.html

‘I figured it didn’t matter, since everyone agreed that the equity had only symbolic value, not dollar value.”

Well, maybe …

“Well, the guy later left the company, and decided to sell his equity, which i learned he had every legal right to do.”

Claiming not to know this does strain my credibility. Especially if the equity was given in 1999, as the bubble was realy getting going.

I suspect there’s a missing element where Craig *thought* the guy wouldn’t be able to pull off a sale given the amounts involved, but the guy actually managed it. Maybe Craig believed nobody would pay millions for stock which didn’t pay a dividend in a company that wasn’t going to go public.
Reading between the lines, that’s probably what’s meant by the remark in the _Fortune_ article that
“When Knowlton decided to sell, most of the bidders, including Yahoo, Google, and a number of venture-capital firms, wanted control. Only eBay was willing to settle for a noncontrolling stake.”
I translate that as “The others didn’t want to buy what Knowlton had to sell, since he only had 25% and they were only interested in buying a total of > 50% – but eBay was willing to do it”

cnewmark.com/2004/08/ebay_and_craigs.html

‘I figured it didn’t matter, since everyone agreed that the equity had only symbolic value, not dollar value.”

Well, maybe …

“Well, the guy later left the company, and decided to sell his equity, which i learned he had every legal right to do.”

Claiming not to know this does strain my credibility. Especially if the equity was given in 1999, as the bubble was realy getting going.

I suspect there’s a missing element where Craig *thought* the guy wouldn’t be able to pull off a sale given the amounts involved, but the guy actually managed it. Maybe Craig believed nobody would pay millions for stock which didn’t pay a dividend in a company that wasn’t going to go public.
Reading between the lines, that’s probably what’s meant by the remark in the _Fortune_ article that
“When Knowlton decided to sell, most of the bidders, including Yahoo, Google, and a number of venture-capital firms, wanted control. Only eBay was willing to settle for a noncontrolling stake.”
I translate that as “The others didn’t want to buy what Knowlton had to sell, since he only had 25% and they were only interested in buying a total of > 50% – but eBay was willing to do it”

“As for the money eBay shelled out, that went to Knowlton, not Craigslist.” This might be technically true but not the full picture, in that as part of the stock transfer Knowlton might have had to give some money to Craigslist. But that’s not eBay’s problem. The money passing to the preferred stock holders might even be a requirement somehow.

But Dan’s already articulated his standard about “wiggle room”, so I suppose Craig can get a pass there. I suppose he (Craig) could have meant something like “I *thought* that Knowlton would never be able to manage to sell given all the restrictions in his contract, but I was wrong” (which is worth a chuckle, but actually then is true!)

By the way Dan, isn’t it unfair to pillory a guy based on second-hand paraphrases? How do you know that his actual statements don’t contain the all-important wiggle, and is that really what it’s all about?