Our religulous readers at theStreet.com decided to take a stab at Zero Hedge over the weekend due to our discovery, first among all media, that the Hindenburg Omen had struck this past Thursday. We take this opportunity to teach theStreet a few of the key rules of blogging etiquette.
1. A website run by Jim Cramer describes Zero Hedge narrative as if "writing in a vein that seems made for professional boxing or WWE pay-per-view event hype, describes the Hindenburg Omen as "Easily the most feared technical pattern in all of chartism (for the bullishly inclined). Those who know what it is, tend to have an atavistic reaction to its mere mention." Seriously? Jim Cramer's website accusing someone of hype? That's some serious "crossing the streams" voodoo. We have nothing to say here - South Park's Eric Cartman did the best job of capturing the essence of thestreet.com's CEO style previously.
2. Oddly enough, The Street had no such qualms about the description of the Hindenburg Omen by David Buik at BGC Partners. As the Telegraph highlighted, Buik "drew attention to the Hindenburg Omen, which he described somewhat theatrically as "easily the most feared technical pattern in all of chartism"." Hmm - this seems oddly identical to our own language, which theStreet decided to ridicule. While we may or may not seek copyright arbitration vis-a-vis the nice folks at BGC, it seems somewhat obtuse of theStreet's staff to take offense by our characterization of the H.O., but not an idential one presented by one "of the world's leading interdealer brokers." Why the bias?
3. It is accepted etiquette to link up to the source, especially when that source breaks the news. Benzinga and most other sources did so. Does theStreet.com think traditional web rules do not apply to it? Or perhaps, theStreet believes that no rules apply to it? To wit, and as a case study of hyperlinking for the sole benefit of theStreet, we present this example of how that whole process works, from a previous Zero Hedge post. Note the hyperlink to thestreet's form 12B-25:
Jim Cramer's TheStreet Is Being Investigated By The SEC
Seek and ye shall find. Never has this been more true than combing through theStreet's (much delayed if at all available) financials. As investors may have been digging through the company's SEC reports to find out just what the financial website's unadjusted EBITDA is (hint: much, much less than its "adjusted" cousin), one stumbles upon this gem just filed in today's Form 12B-25:
As a result of the need for the Company and its independent registered public accounting firm to focus attention on matters related to the Company's previously-announced review of the accounting in its former Promotions.com subsidiary, which subsidiary the Company sold in December 2009 -- including matters related to the preparation and filing by the Company in February 2010 of a Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2008, a Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 and Forms 10-Q for the quarters ended June 30, 2009 and September 30, 2009, respectively, and matters related to an investigation commenced by Securities and Exchange Commission in March 2010 -- the Company requires additional time to prepare its financial statements, assess its internal controls and file its Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 ("2009 Form 10-K").
4. Last, and probably least, if theStreet has an issue with our writing style, perhaps they can tell Google's adsense to no longer advertise Jim Cramer's theStreet premium service contextually and based on cookies, on Zero Hedge (a process we have no control over). We assume had theStreet's revenue numbers (and thus traffic) been sufficiently attractive, they would not need to reach out and attempt to steal the eyeballs of Zero Hedge's nearly 200k a day readers.
And that concludes our web etiquette lesson for today.