I don’t want to seem like I’m willfully ignoring this story, so here’s a link to a Times article about the Wilpons’ prior investments with fraudulent businesses.

I was on the conference call on Friday and it bored me near to tears. I hardly know what most of this stuff means, but it does seem like the particular case is perhaps a bit too nuanced for most of those covering and reacting to it to grasp (I don’t mean the Times piece, I mean columns like this one).

And I fear that trying my best to clear things up will either a) make it seem like I’m defending the Wilpons on account of my paycheck, which I’m not interested in doing or b) expose my ignorance of nearly everything pertaining to business and investments.