I would too if I discovered such information and if they did it without insider information I don't see anything wrong with it.

If they have information that GE is overvalued, what should they do? If they don’t short, people like you go Taleb and accuse them of throwing out accusations with no skin in the game; if they do short, they get accused of making things up for profit. They can’t win.

They can win, if they prove their case and it is found to be true and comes to pass as they say it will. Until then, the company being shorted will generally lash out regardless of the truth or not of their accusations.

Generally at this point worrying about what Taleb and his fanboys think shouldn't be anyone's concern. They only "can't win" if they are concerned with fringe voices who are constantly looking for fights to pick.

But you see, I didn't say that they were wrong or right. I merely was pointing out the fact that they put in their disclaimer that they did in fact have short positions on GE prior to publication.

You didn’t “merely point it out”, you described it as “hilarious”. This implies that you view the disclosure as some sort of evidence of impropriety, as if you discovered what game they were truly playing or something.

As others have told you, this is standard practice for short sellers, and the financial industry as a whole.

What would you rather them do? Simply claim that GE is a fraud without having any stake in GE, long or short? Don’t you lend their claim more weight given that they’ve taken a financial position based on their belief? I would think that would be a more rational view.

That is literally what short sellers do. They find something they don't like, short it, and then try to drive the price down through publicity.

Or, they find something that has generally hidden flaws, short it, and then shine light on those flaws.

It's not that strange. When people buy a stock, they'll pump it with positive stories too. Or they'll downplay any malfeasance.

Disclosure of a financial position when offering any kind of commentary on a stock is legally prudent if not explicitly required.

I believe adding the disclosure serves as a mitigating factor if it turns out your analysis was bullshit, if the SEC tries to come after you for fraud.