The backstory on this post comes in two parts:
Today’s late-morning mailbag brought quick response from Mr. Henry Blodget. Before trying to make sense of it, I respectfully suggest the reader consider the two links above (especially the first). Also note that Mr. Blodget has over time, and especially in the last two months, published and republished “every yellow journalism hit-piece written by any slack-jawed mouth-breathing jackanapes who can manage to sit on a keyboard”, as I wrote earlier today, language which seems to have given New York Times’ reporter Floyd Norris the vapors (perhaps because Floyd could not turn a phrase if it had a handle on it). Given this background, some might find Mr. Blodget’s response odd:
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Henry Blodget
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 11:12 AM
To: Patrick Byrne
Subject: Re: Overstock CEO Byrne
I didn’t realize we had reached a permanent impasse on the post, but judging from your Deep Capture entry, I guess we have. I’m sorry you experienced the recent exchange as “nastiness.” I certainly didn’t.
I don’t think you are a “very bad man.” (I don’t know you well enough to know). I’m very impressed with the company you’ve built, as well as with your intelligence, accomplishments, and willingness to challenge convention. I do wonder why you occasionally do things that, from my perspective, seem self-destructive. But I suspect a lot of people who have watched and interacted with you over the years feel that way.
I won’t editorialize, instead choosing to leave it to interested parties to read the correspondence published in The Illustrious Henry Blodget Thinks I Am A Very Bad Man, Part 1 and privately decide the measures of truth versus rationalization in Mr. Blodget’s reply. Feel free to share an opinion below.
Of course, Henry Blodget could save us all the effort, and simply publish the essay that Business Insider requested that I write almost two months ago, and that I wrote over a month ago, and whose publication he then stalled, dodged, and temporized (though he seems to manage to republish the yellow journalism hit pieces within hours of their first appearance). After all, weeks ago I faxed Henry the signed indemnity he requested (with but the one change described in the earlier blog, and that is, that I, not he, get to fight any lawsuit that those of his acquaintance might choose to file), and posted the essay today myself, thereby eliminating all elgal risk for him. So, if Henry was being truthful in suggesting that this was not a dead issue, and he was not merely temporizing, then there is really a way he could show it.
After all, Henry Blodget would not be just trying to spin the public, would he?