Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 1:03 am
Post subject: Gotterdammerung of the American mainstream media

Ha ha – this is a great one. An all-time classic from Joe Nocera. Below you will find an email Joe Nocera sent me asking for my “reaction” to some odd claims he wanted to include in his weekly column. Alas, he sent the email Friday afternoon at 12:11 PM his time (note the “10:11 AM” time stamp of our email system, which is in Salt Lake City, that is to say, Rocky Mountain Time) and, as I was in Texas this afternoon in a meeting, I missed the window of a few hours that I theoretically had been offered to respond before Joe’s deadline for his weekly column. Congratulations are due Joe, who has crossed a line never previously crossed (not even by Carol!) by those engaged in their desperate efforts to keep the wig in place.

—–Original Message—–
From: Joe Nocera [mailto:XXXXX]
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 10:11 AM
To: Patrick Byrne
Subject: david rocker

patrick– David Rocker made a speech a couple of weeks ago in which he said, among other things, that your lawsuit was nothing mroe (sic) than an effort to silence critics. He also said that Gradient did its first report about Overstock a year before Rocker Partners even became a client. And he said that Mr. Anafantis (sp?) has been discredited with the SEC’s “no action” letter. Your reaction?

–
Joe Nocera
XXXX
YYYY
nocera@nytimes.com
==================================================

Had Joe actually abided by the principles of Ethics in Journalism 101, I would pointed out the numerous flaws in his attempt to whitewash the criminal activity of his friend Rocker with a “Free speech in America is very important” spin. Remember, from the start Rocker’s lawyers have tried to spin his illegal activity as being about free speech, and this is how the argument has been met by the adults who have examined it:

1) On 8 counts versus 0, the trial judge in Marin Country sided with us and against Rocker’s claim that this suit was about free speech. In fact, the judge said in the courtroom that after his initial review of the evidence there was a “high likelihood” that we would win the suit. Rocker appealed.

2) The California Attorney General appeared out of nowhere and filed an amicus with the appellate court supporting our side and against Rocker’s attempt to spin this as about free speech.

3) The appellate court recently heard Rocker’s arguments. This Law.com article gives a good sense of how the appellate court responded to the hysterical attempts by Rocker’s lawyers to spin his illegal conduct as being about free speech. www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1176282246984

The Law.com article captures one judge’s reaction nicely: “Justice Ignazio Ruvolo indicated there was evidence even ‘at this stage of the proceedings’ that could substantiate Overstock.com’s claims.” Somehow Joe missed that.

I’d also have pointed out that Rocker does not seem to think “Free speech in America is very important” when someone criticizes Rocker: Rocker famously sued some message board posters a few years back for daring to criticize him and his unethical behavior (incidentally, that case got laughed out of town). Free speech doesn’t seem to be that important to Rocker, Joe.

In the face of these facts, Joe blithely asserts that “The facts are not on Mr. Byrne’s side” without mentioning that the trial court, the California attorney general, and the appellate judge have indicated exactly the opposite, even at this extremely early stage.

Joe notes without question that, “Mr. Rocker wasn’t even a client of Gradient when it began writing its tough-minded reports on Overstock,” neglecting to mention that ex-employees of Gradient assert that the firm had a relationship with Rocker even before he formally became a client.

Joe writes about his friend Rocker “But you know how lawsuits are: a year and a half later, the thing has barely gotten started” without mentioning that we have been most eager to move forward, but that his friend Rocker has stalled and delayed at every opportunity, rejecting the appellate court’s offer to rule without delay for a hearing: there was even one article where an attorney for the miscreants promised to appeal the appellate court ruling. That is, Joe bemoans the fact that “the thing has barely gotten started” while conveniently neglecting to mention that it is his friend Rocker who is doing everything he
can to keep it from getting started.

And so on and so forth.

Is anyone else noticing that something seems to be going on this week? First, after a year of criticizing me for my decision to issue a press release celebrating my receipt of a subpoena from the SEC, the shills are now trying to make a case that I should have sent out a second press release when I received another addressed to me as a person, though it was a small fraction as long as the first, covered sub-issues of the first, as well as issues related to a broader investigation that is not about me or Overstock at all. As though there is a world of difference between a subpoena addressed to our corporate lawyer asking for our CEO’s materials, and one addressed to me at our corporate address: I hate to disappoint, but that distinction is such a fine one it did not occur to me it was worthy of a second press release. The funny part is how it still has not dawnede on the miscreants that a fair bit of the material being requested by the SEC concerns them, not me or Overstock.

What would have made them so angry this week? Perhaps they are mad that last Sunday, at an event hosted by The Economist (a publication with infinitely more credibility than Joe, Roddy, Herb, Gary etc. could ever aspire to), the bad guys lost control of the narrative?

http://www.cultureproject.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=49

http://cultureproject.org/video2/archivepages/hedge2.html

I think these fellows better hope that the scandal whose lid they are trying so desperately to secure never blows off, because if it does, in the aftermath not only with their journalism come under examination, but more importantly, the publications which have blithely published it will be seen to have been part of the cover-up. Which is entirely right and approrpiate. And then that will be the end of it.

Can anyone doubt at this point that we are witnessing the Götterdammerung of the American mainstream media?

Patrick

Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 2:43 pm
Post subject: Bloomberg Television

SCANDAL!

Bloomberg Television has produced a shocking 25 minute exposé showing how Wall Street rogues are exploiting a crack in the system to steal tens of billions of dollars from Americans. The Bloomberg piece starts by talking about Overstock (I make a brief appearance, as a guy just trying to be a good citizen), but goes on to describe a wildly illegal scheme that hurts thousands of companies and millions of Americans with stock accounts. This may turn into a financial scandal that makes Enron look like a Sunday picnic.

Bloomberg News is arguably the most highly-regarded and trustworthy news service in the US. Please tune in to Bloomberg Television today, Friday April 6, at 11 AM ET or 4 PM ET (or simply watch it online at Bloomberg.com). http://images.overstock.com/f/102/3117/8h/www.overstock.com/07-0313Bloom_PhantomShares_NSS.wmv

Respectfully,

Patrick (Humble CEO)

P.S. – Please shop Overstock.com and get Free Shipping* on your order when you click here!

* Free Shipping offer ends Monday, April 9, 2007.

Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 1:13 am
Post subject: Answers for a Reporter

Dear Reader,

You may know of my efforts to expose a crime that I believe is taking place on an enormous scale against millions of American workers, retirees, and savers, a crime from which a tiny segment within the hedge fund community is benefiting, and that is taking place in under the noses of our financial media. At the heart of the scandal is an obscure but in some ways mammoth corporation called, “DTCC.”The Party Line response has been to spin my efforts as just those of a CEO mad about his stock (though I started this while the stock was going up). Yet since I began my efforts a tremendous amount of data has come to light, and numerous economists, financial experts, and whistleblowers have come forward, confirming many of my claims. The story is cracking into the mainstream. Last April a Bloomberg expose by Bob Drummond detailed how counterfeit shares flooding our financial system have made a hoax out of corporate elections. In September Drummond/Bloomberg followed up describing the effects of these manipulations on hundreds of companies. Now, the current (February 12) issue of Forbes has two stories (by Liz Moyer and Nathan Vardi) that confirm claims which two years ago sounded absurd: that there is a mechanism in place to destroy companies for profit, that hundreds have been taken down, and that Organized Crime is involved.

http://www.rgm.com/articles/FalseProxies.pdf
http://www.buyins.net/articles/gamesshortsellersplay.pdf
http://www.forbes.com/home/free_forbes/2007/0212/068.html
http://www.forbes.com/home/free_forbes/2007/0212/064.html

When this is all over, one of the most interesting aspects of this story will be the battle between the 1.0 world and the 2.0 world. The opening shot may have been “RatherGate,” where Dan Rather’s journalism was successfully challenged by a swarm of bloggers (however you feel about President Bush, there is no doubt that Rather’s documents turned out to be fake). But the fight to expose this financial corruption may surpass that, because it has largely been a fight pitting, on one side, huge financial media corporations, and on the other, a swarm of bloggers, retired stockbrokers, and whistleblowers who figured out how the game was rigged and who had the data to expose it, data which much of the mainstream press did everything it could to bury.

Incidentally, I do not mean to suggest that the press is monolithic. Two entities in particular have shown great courage: Forbes and Bloomberg. However, so far their efforts have been outweighed by those of Fortune Magazine, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal, who have done everything they could to downplay the data which has now become incontrovertible. In fact, because I believe that a small number of members of the press are somehow involved in this, I have adopted a policy with journalists: until I trust them, I insist that communication between us be on the record unless otherwise agreed. I have stated this policy publicly. http://www.thesanitycheck.com/DrByrneJournalists/tabid/90/Default.aspx

There exists a once-respected business writer named Gary Weiss who has become reviled by many people in his profession. Over the last year or so Gary has devoted countless articles and (by the tally of one of his own colleagues) 93% of his blogs to saying that I am wrong about all this, that I am crazy, that I am a bad guy, etc. Unfortunately for Gary, he appears to have a relationship with the DTCC, that corporation at the heart of the scandal (http://antisocialmedia.net/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Main.WeissDTCC ). If true, it means that a reporter, Gary Weiss, is taking part in a cover-up.

Today a reporter contacted me about this issue. A quick check confirms that Gary Weiss is no stranger to her: she wrote one of two reviews of his book (the other being by another reporter who is ridiculously biased in favor of hedge funds and against America). She and I exchanged a confusing (to me anyway) series of emails, which I post below: I think if you read them and note their obliqueness you will understand my decision simply to post my responses publicly. At her request I sanitized them of any personal contact information from her, and from other journalists. Within them were an extensive set of questions, which I post and answer below our correspondence.

Your humble servant,
Patrick

==========================================
From: xxx
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 7:28 AM
To: Patrick Byrne
Subject: from susan antilla/bloomberg news columnist
Dear Mr. Byrne,
I write a column for Bloomberg News and am preparing to write a story about Overstock’s public relations/investors relations strategy. Judd Bagley already has answered a number of my questions, but some issues remain that predated his affiliation with the company. I have attached these questions to this email. Would it be possible for you to get back to me before Monday night?

Thank you for your help.

Sincerely,
Susan Antilla

________________________________________
From: Patrick Byrne
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 8:47 AM
To: XXXX
cc: yyy (also at Bloomberg)
Subject: RE: from susan antilla/bloomberg news columnist Bloomberg)
Dear Ms. Antilla,

It is very kind of you to write. I will work today on providing you answers to your questions, but before I do I have several points I wish to address. Please consider this off the record until we have the ground rules of our relationship worked out.

1. As you may know, I am currently working with another Bloomberg journalist on a story and feel at this point that I must include him, in some sense, in my response. I am a “dance with the one who brought you” kind of guy. I feel a little awkward talking at the same time to two different reporters from the same organization: I would feel intolerably awkward if I were doing it behind the backs of one of them. Is that fair?2. Judd tells me that in your communication with him you referenced my interactions with Mr. Mullaney of BusinessWeek ( http://www.thesanitycheck.com/DrByrneJournalists/tabid/90/Default.aspx ). So it sounds as though you know my public principle: that if interviews with me are on the record, they must be on the record for the journalist as well as for me. Is that acceptable to you? May I consider your letter on the record?

3. As you know also from those interactions which you referred to with Judd, you know it is my general habit to reply to journalists by posting their questions along with my answers on the Internet. I mean no disrespect by this whatsoever: I have just found that the reporters generally make that extra small effort to represent my responses fairly when I do this. Would you have any objection to my operating this way with your questions?

4. In general, I see the situation as being the confluence of four issues: 1) there is a scandal called “naked short selling”; 2) there is a corporation (the DTCC) at the heart of the scandal; 3) there is a reporter (Gary) using his offices to deny, minimize, and cover-up that scandal; 4) Gary and DTCC appear to have a professional relationship ( http://antisocialmedia.net/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Main.WeissDTCC ).

5. Simple research shows me that you have a connection with Gary, at least in that you gave one of the rare reviews of his book, and your review could have been written by Gary himself. Candidly, that is a little problematic for me, as is the fact that there are numerous false assumptions buried throughout your questions to me. I do not fault you for that, Lord knows it is easy to get confused about some of this. That said, would you be willing to agree to a basic rule as far as this interview goes, that rule being, I cannot be quoted except by full sentence? No partial sentence quotes?

I hope you find these preliminary questions in the spirit in which they are intended. Also, in any reply, please tell me whether you want your subsequent reply to be on the record or not. I look forward to hearing from you, and until then, I remain,

Yours,
Patrick

________________________________________
From: xxx
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 2:18 PM
To: Patrick Byrne
Subject: Re: from susan antilla/bloomberg news columnist
Dear Mr. Byrne
Thank you for your response.
Could you address these issues to me on-the-record?
Thank you.
Sincerely, Susan Antilla

________________________________________
From: Patrick Byrne
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 4:14 PM
To: xxx
Subject: RE: from susan antilla/bloomberg news columnist
Dear Ms. Antilla,

Thanks for writing back. However, I am not sure what you are saying: are you asking, “Was your letter to me, Patrick, on the record?” Yes it was. Or are you just asking me to address your original set of questions on the record? The answer to that is also yes, but I have lots going on and it may take me a day or two (if that is satisfactory).

I look forward to getting out of the meta-conversation and into the conversation!

Warm regards,

Patrick

________________________________________
From: xxx
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 6:32 PM
To: Patrick Byrne
Subject: Re: from susan antilla/bloomberg news columnist

Dear Mr. Byrne,

In your email this morning, you said ”please consider this off the record” until ground rules were worked out. Then you made 5 points. I guess I’m a little confused that you are now saying that the email that included those 5 points is now on the record, but thank you for clarifying.

Re your response to the questions that I sent to you: yes, I’d appreciate if you responded on the record only.

On your questions to me:

– You requested that I only use full-sentence quotations from any answers that you send. I agree to that. I’m assuming that you will understand that I may not be able to use lengthy quotations.

– Re my Bloomberg colleague: it appears you already have made a decision and acted on it, so I don’t see that my input is relevant.

– Re your proposal to post my questions publicly: I consider my questions my work product at this point. No story has been written or published. I will leave it up to you to determine the right way to handle that. If you should decide to publish my inquiries, I would appreciate that you remove my private telephone numbers.

I look forward to receiving your answers. Although I was hoping to begin writing the story this evening, I will delay that until I receive your answers tomorrow.

Thank you.
Sincerely, Susan Antilla

=================================================

The questions Ms. Antilla attached to her first email read as follows:

1.At what point did it become a corporate strategy to attack company attackers aggressively? I am specifically referring to your public stance against naked short sellers, brokerage firms (recent lawsuit) and members of the media including Gary Weiss and Herb Greenberg.2. Did management consult with outsiders (pr people; lawyers; mgt consultants) before moving in that direction? What outside PR firms do you use today, if any?3. What portion of your time is spent on public relations/investor relations and what portion is spent on operation of the company?4. Has Overstock ever conducted any polling (or hired someone to conduct polling) of its shareholders to determine their thoughts about your aggressive PR?
– if so, what did you learn

5. What other feedback have you received, positive and negative from your shareholders about your approach to short sellers, brokerage firms, and the media?

6. Why not utilize a strategy in which you aggressively promote the positive aspects of the company rather than attack?

7. You filed suit against brokerage firms on the Friday before a Monday announcement of disappointing company results. Was the timing of the lawsuit in any way meant to provide a diversion from the bad results?

8. I spoke with a securities lawyer and former SEC regulator about your lawsuit against the brokerage firms. It was his feeling that it would be very difficult for you to get the trade data and connect the dots that would support your legal theory. Do you think you have a winning lawsuit that you will fight to the end? From your point of view, is the suit a valuable PR strategy (sending a message) as much as it is a legal strategy?

9. While there are some very aggressive public relations experts who think that your strategy is both advisable and “cutting edge,” there is also a camp that says that it is not productive to attack reporters and file lawsuits. Do you have any regrets over your public statements about news reporters or your legal techniques?

I am now answering Ms. Antilla’s questions in this letter below, and will send her a link to this message board post. I hope you in the Overstock Community do not mind terribly having this played out on your message board.

Dear Ms. Antilla,

I respectfully inform you that I am posting to this board our communications, your questions, and my answers to them: doing so was not my original intent, but your responses to my questions were so consistently oblique that I think it clear this will facilitate the most straightforward communication between us (I am not sure why some folks have so much trouble simply saying, “This is off-the-record,” a request which I always honor).

I am unable to form form reply to your questions without first addressing the paradigm and the (in my view) false assumptions which infuse it.

In brief, you are speaking from a 1.0 paradigm in which there are two competing sets of agents: “corporations” and “members of the media.” In my worldview there are also two competing sets of agents: “citizen-journalists exposing a financial scandal,” and “corporations and their employees whose involvement in this scandal is being exposed.” That some of those corporations happen to be media corporations, and their employees, reporters, neither alters that basic landscape nor makes it incomprehensible.

I hope that brief preamble will make the following responses more intelligible.

1.At what point did it become a corporate strategy to attack company attackers aggressively?

What I am doing is not “attacking,” it is “exposing,” but in any case, what should one do with “company attackers” (your term) and if they are “company attackers” why should they be uniquely permitted to atttack?

I am specifically referring to your public stance against naked short sellers, brokerage firms (recent lawsuit)…

With regard to “naked short sellers,” I view my actions less as “attacking” anyone and more as exposing criminal activities within our financial system, activities which SEC Chairman Cox said last July were “clearly violative of federal securities laws”: is Chairman Cox “attacking” naked short sellers by saying that?

…and members of the media including Gary Weiss and Herb Greenberg.

Herb may be a “company attacker” as you say, but I think my response to him has largely been ridicule and disdain, not “attack.”

If Gary Weiss is also “company attacker” as you say, then so be it, but there is no “corporate strategy” regarding Gary Weiss and, I’ll note, you have mustered no argument and adduced no evidence that there is. You have simply made a flat claim, which happens to be false.

I will answer the question that you seem to be wanting to ask here. Yes, at the start of 2006 Judd Bagley began sleuthing and blogging about Gary’s activities, and yes, later in August (September?) Judd joined us and developed our car tab (by November) and now Omuse, but Judd’s hobby of blogging about Gary is no more a reflection of our “corporate strategy” than Forbes could be said to have a “corporate strategy” of attacking Overstock, simply because they employ Gary, and Gary also has a blog 93% dedicated to attacking Overstock.

2. Did management consult with outsiders (pr people; lawyers; mgt consultants) before moving in that direction?

Only in the following loose sense. There are millions of powerless people being ripped off by forces outside of their control or understanding, and I was taught that while one doesn’t have to go around looking for bullies to confront, when one comes across bullies picking on weaker people one has to stand up for those who cannot. So if you call my Mom, my grade school teachers, my professors “outsiders” whose consultations have caused me to “mov[e] in that direction,” then I suppose I suppose the answer is, loosely speaking, “Yes.”

What outside PR firms do you use today, if any?

In general we have engaged in little outside PR, though recently there has been a small, two-woman operation back East that is doing some general PR for us. But no, this is home-grown. Can you really imagine a PR firm coming up with this as a strategy?

3. What portion of your time is spent on public relations/investor relations and what portion is spent on operation of the company?

It varies month to month, but over the span of a year I would estimate:

Public relations: 15%
Investor relations: 2%
Company operations: 83%

4. Has Overstock ever conducted any polling (or hired someone to conduct polling) of its shareholders to determine their thoughts about your aggressive PR?
– if so, what did you learn

Oddly enough, someone told me a year or so ago that he had thrown my name onto the bottom of a political poll, and (according to him) while a bit less than 10% of Americans recognized my name, those who did gave me an approval rating that would make me blush to reveal. I have my doubts about it, because the number seemed impossibly high to me.

Our company does the occasional brand awareness poll, and sometime last year we threw on a question to ask consumers if they knew about this contest and how they felt: a surprisingly small percentage had made the connection, but those who did supported my actions by a substantial (but not impossible high) margin.

Shareholders: I have gotten significantly more encouragement than discouragement from shareholders. I have considered polling them but would not know how, or what to think if the number totaled 300%.

5. What other feedback have you received, positive and negative from your shareholders about your approach to short sellers, brokerage firms, and the media?

Respectfully, I do not know what else to say beyond what I just wrote.

6. Why not utilize a strategy in which you aggressively promote the positive aspects of the company rather than attack?

Respectfully, this is just a string of bad assumptions: this is not a “strategy,” I do not call what I do “attacking,” and you are the ones who called them “company attackers”: why not ask them why they are “attackers”?

7. You filed suit against brokerage firms on the Friday before a Monday announcement of disappointing company results. Was the timing of the lawsuit in any way meant to provide a diversion from the bad results?

No, the timing of the lawsuit was driven more by missed phone calls, late flights, FedEx deliveries and so on and so forth: as we have said, we announce news when we have it. In addition, this whole “diversion” theory is a little odd: in your view has this been much of a diversion?

8. I spoke with a securities lawyer and former SEC regulator about your lawsuit against the brokerage firms. It was his feeling that it would be very difficult for you to get the trade data and connect the dots that would support your legal theory.

Ha-ha-ha: Please tell him I said, “Dream on.”

Do you think you have a winning lawsuit that you will fight to the end?

Yes.

From your point of view, is the suit a valuable PR strategy (sending a message) as much as it is a legal strategy?

It is not a “PR strategy” of any kind (valuable or non-valuable) and I have no idea what “message” it would purport to be sending: it is an attempt to seek rectificatory justice for a company and shareholders harmed by criminal activities.

9. While there are some very aggressive public relations experts who think that your strategy is both advisable and “cutting edge,” there is also a camp that says that it is not productive to attack reporters and file lawsuits. Do you have any regrets over your public statements about news reporters or your legal techniques?

I regret none of my “public statements” or “legal techniques,” and once again, this is not a “public relations… strategy.” Most respectfully, what part of “illegal” is so confusing? What part of, “There are millions of people whose savings are being stolen, and I cannot stand by and watch” seems so utterly incomprehensible?

Ms. Antilla, there are many, many reporters who explicitly ask me (as you have not) for confidentiality, and I always comply. I hope you understand why, given your oblique responses, I thought this conversation would best be continued in the sunlight of public observation. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me (or simply post them here and let me know). Until then, I wish you all the best, and I remain,

Yours,
Patrick M. Byrne

Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 6:53 pm
Post subject: Sell-through-rates

Folks,

As you know, historically our STR has been abysmally low. We charged so little for the auctions that we did not feel too badly about it. But we set about making some changes, and they seem to be working.

A few weeks ago we had our first day with sell-through-rates over 10.0%.

Then last week we had our first day with sell-through-rates over 20.0%.

Yesterday our sell-through-rate was 31.0%.

I believe (but want to be corrected if I am wrong) that this is now slighly above eBay’s. That is, a third party reports eBay’s closing rate as being about 40%, but their calculation seems to be more generous (in that a Buy-It-Now can get relisted up to three times, and the first two failures do not count against the STR score). Is this true? Does anyone have any knowledge you can share with me on this?

Now that we (collectively) have an auction site that is viable, and letting sellers get acceptable closing rates (at last), I hope you are spreading the word in the eBay buying community that there are good deals here, without the overwhelming competition (yet) from other bidders that eBay has. I think that is the right message to send the eBay buying community: when you bid on auctions at Overstock, all the best deals do not get bid away (or sniped) from you.

In any case, thank you for sticking with us until the fire began to burn.

Patrick

Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 8:11 pm
Post subject: Meghan and I Just Sent This: Subscription Plans Are Ending

Greetings Sellers,

We recently informed you that subscription plans 5-10 will expire on December 31, 2006. However, further analysis has convinced us that the problems arising from O-Subscriptions (specifically, high starting prices, and thus, low sell-through rates) are endemic to all subscription plans, and are therefore detrimental both to your business and ours. As a result, we are ending our O-Subscriptions and have removed the sign-up page.

Sellers currently subscribing to a plan will be allowed to utilize it through midnight, January 11. Any unused portions of your plan (including all January subscription fees) will be credited back to you.

Though we have eliminated O-Subscriptions, we are excited about other changes we are coding up now. By March, 2007, Overstock.com Auctions hopes to have released a classified ad platform, bid cancellation capability, and the revival of 1-day auctions. We are confident that these site enhancements, along with the O-Subscription changes, will add value to the bidder experience and, ultimately, to your business.

Should you have any questions, please direct them to sellershotline@overstock.com. We appreciate your support and wish you the best in 2007.

Respectfully,

Meghan Tuohig – Director, Auctions
Patrick M. Byrne – CEO, Overstock.com

Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 8:34 pm
Post subject: Interesting article

http://www.forbes.com/business/2006/12/20/bollywood-hottest-films-biz-cx_lm_1219bollywood.html

I am a fan myself.