That's fair; Barry is a professional who does great stuff and he has every right to be sensitive if I have my facts wrong.

Here's what I wrote:

I got this material from Barry Ritholtz's new Ritholtz Capital website, so I'll give him an attribution " even though Barry does not fairly attribute the other charts to those who created them and widely distributed them while back when (in one case) Barry was riding horses in prep school or whatever.

Somebody wrote a letter to me this week asking if I ever sleep, referring to the amount of blogging. Then I saw a blogger's rating service that stated my frequency was "Average".

I'm guessing the latter was comparing me to Ritholtz, which seems interesting when you read his website telling us all the stuff that goes on while he's not doing his usual TV gigs and all. Maybe my reader should be asking Barry if and when he sleeps.

---

And here is Barry's complaint:

"Hey Bill,

You can accuse of lots of things -- lack of attribution aint one of them.

I first used that chart on the blog back in December '05, writing "have a look at what Tim Iacono of TheMessThatGreenspanMade pulled together." For the Source, I cited "Business Week, Tim Iacono"
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2005/12/chart_of_the_we_1.html

When I used the same chart in a TSCM article, the attribution ran there also.
http://www.thestreet.com/markets/marketfeatures/10260096_2.html

As to the sourcing of charts and other materials, I am fastidious about that -- Kindly direct me to a specific chart that is not appropriately cited. I just scrolled thru 3 months of posts, and every single chart is either linked, referenced, sourced -- or all three. There are two posts where a sell side analyst requested anonymity for compliance reasons (and its either stated or implied).

Prep school? (pu-leeze!) I went to public high school, worked my way through SUNY Stony Brook, paying for it myself. Same for Grad school.

The for-pay Research site (ritholtz.com) is still in beta; anyone who accessed it via the passwords I posted at my blog knows that. It's far from a finished product.

Why the snotty tone? The bad facts? WTF? If I insulted you somehow step up and say something to me. Catty sniping behind my back -- wrongly may I add -- is beneath you . . .

You owe me an apology"

---

So I wrote back:

Barry, You know for a fact -- I have told you this -- that I think you are a top blogger -- certainly one of the top three or four.

I write most days in a semi-conscious state because I don't have time to think twice. Usually it works out for me. Apparently this time it didn't. I'll look it over in the morning and see.

If I'm wrong, I'll write it up in the blog. If I think I'm right, I'll write that up too, given that you sent a comment to my blog.

---

Here's what I think happened. A reader of mine sent me the Ritholtz.com password to Barry's new beta test site. I spent maybe 30 seconds scanning it; saw it was part of a business site, and not the usual blog, so I immediately held it to a higher standard (in my own mind as I proceeded to scan the material).

I saw some charts without attribution. One of them was used by Ian Notley in 1980-81, and I can't recall whether Notley used his own or gave attribution. My memory is pretty good, but that was 25 years ago. If this was a blog, I wouldn't give it a second thought. But it was a professional site for professional investors or possibly premium-paying subscribers, so I hold that kind of service to a much higher standard, and expect to see attribution on every exhibit every time.

Is that too much to ask of a Wall St. Journal or Barron's etc? I don't think so.

So maybe I was sub-consciously telling my friend (and he is) that his new site is on a different level than his blog and now he has a greater responsibility to the reader.

And as to him telling me he used the chart in 2005 and gave attribution then doesn't cut it. Sorry.

And what about the chart that was dated the early 80's? Where is the attribution? If WSJ published that same chart, I know for certain that their editors would not publish it without attribution.

The point to all this is I simply that I want Barry to succeed. Big time.

He and I are on the same side. We are marching into a battle and I need to know that he doesn't have weakness in his armor. That's all that was in my mind as I scanned over his beta site material.

Next, Barry is upset that I was "snotty" and "catty" in taking a shot at his playing up to the horsey set, which happens to be what I perceived when I read his bio.

The point I was making is there is a significant difference between a fun blog and a piece of serious work intended as a business development site for his capital management service. If stating that you happened to be an Olympic class horse rider, who learned discipline (yada yada) through the process, that's quite different than flipping a remark something like while at school I spent a lot of time with Flicka and Rose Bud.

I mean it did jump off the page at me. I apologize for that one. I probably took it too far by linking Barry's interest in ponies while at school to the type of school he was attending, and therein lies my error in judgment. I'm glad Barry feels he had a good education, but my mistake was in slighting prep schools. I wish every child had the opportunity to receive the best education available.

But that's my great hope for blogging and Distance Education, isn't it?

Finally, Barry takes a shot at my being critical of his being somewhat of a Cramer clone these days. I know the circumstances, and really I am wrong on this score. When you are as good a communicator as is Barry, then the media wants a piece of you.

One of my friends once told me that Lou Rukeyser had told him that he was the most frequent guest on the "Wall Street Week" show over a period of some five years, and that was a bad thing because it meant he was over-exposed.

I think Barry is concerned about that, and I did stick the needle in for fun, but the point I should have made, and will now, is that if Cramer deserves three hours a night (with repeats) on CNBC then so does Barry. In fact, both deserve a half hour.

That's how much I think of Barry's work as a journalist. How he can get to be a weekly guest (and more) on the popular Kudlow show on CNBC, while holding his independent views, including a call on an extreme bear market this year " worse than my forecast " is remarkable.

I would not attempt that.

So where are we?

We established that Barry is doing his Big Picture blog (www.bigpicture.typepad.com) and a professional website (www.ritholtz.com). My comments were strictly related to his new professional site, which I can see he's in the midst of some marketing challenges. Barry's up to it. He'll work it out because he's good. He'll receive shots (some unfair) from people like me, and he'll handle it because he's got a thick skin. I'll push him and he'll push me " because we both want improvement, personally and in the systems that We The People have been made to use.

I have asked Barry if he wants to expand on his (and my) concerns about the deleterious effects of 30-second sound bite financial journalism. Now that's something we ought to be able to agree on.

Maybe he doesn't want to talk to me now. Barry, hello;