Then there’s #6, where he “can’t remember a single substantive argument” against his positions. Does one even need to say that substantive is in the eye of the beholder, and in the eye of that beholder OF COURSE nothing is going to be substantive? The idea of Byrne accusing others of making arguments “salted with half-truths” is so self-referential as to be laughable.

Is it a “half-truth”, Byrne, that you publicly pumped the quality of your IT infrastructure, only to suddenly declare that it was “decrapitating” and required huge expenditures to fix?

Is it a “half-truth” that you’ve wasted time with OTravel, the jihad, and the myriad of other distractions from the actual business of selling stuff?

Is it a “half-truth” that your father the (former) alleged chairman of the board did precisely nothing to protect the shareholders of Overstock.com from your incompetence?

Is it a “half-truth” that your Miscreant’s Ball conference call made you look like a clown in front of the entire financial world? And that your waving signs around on CNBC cemented that viewpoint?

Is it a “half-truth” that a CEO who looks like a clown is bad for the shareholders of the company?

Yeah, nothing substantial there at all.