Search results

You were saying? LOL

There is no doubt change is in the air. It seems like the overwhelming majority of those who posted here feel that some self policing would do wonders to revive healthy trading discussions. I'm looking forward to seeing a new ET and I know others do as well.

First you provide that spreadsheet of all your trades from 2002 to now, proving your are, indeed, net positive (as you claim) and I'll reveal the best burger I've had in NYC.

Don't go to Desmond's for steaks, just awful. $50 for a prime sirloin that I could have made at home for $10 and 3 times as good. :)

This popular idea is gathering steam. Don't worry what the riff raff may say. :)

No hate surf, and by the way, you are anonymous to me. I have no idea who you are outside of your handle. Maybe if your handle was your REAL NAME, you would have a leg to stand on but until that day, you are also just an alias here. You sign most of your posts "surf". Unless that's your given...

That is why this discussion, along with the extremely popular recommendation of giving the OP more policing duties, is so vital. The riff raff, broken record types will not be tolerated and real traders, seeing a better environment for healthy discussion, will make their way back. Most people...

This is EASY to claim as fact but without a spreadsheet documenting EVERY trade, you're just assuming someone will go through 11 years worth of trade history to see if what you claim as "fact" is actually true. No one has the time nor the motivation to do so. You know this, so this is why you...

Unique members might not be enough, as this might encourage those savvy with IP masking skills and whatnot to manipulate things. Perhaps users with at least 6 months of "experience" posting here could participate. And by experience I mean having been registered here for 6 months.

You're right, it may be too harsh. I proposed a 3 strikes and you're out idea, giving ANY poster a couple opportunities to piss the OP off :D

Exactly, a beta phase to see how it goes. If it's a success, it stays. If not, then back to the drawing board. Seems like it's worth a shot. Although I like Jack Larkin's idea concerning the ignore list of the OP being the deciding factor (and, of course, that ignore list is allowed to grow if...

And he's terrified at the idea of losing his audience for those theatrics, hence the huge fit he's currently throwing. :D

The quality and substance should greatly improve, especially with regards to actual trading dialogue that too often gets commandeered by a small group of fanatical hooligans who steer the conversation away from analysis and towards blanket statements backed by hot air.

Makes logical sense to me, because you can't just block someone from your one thread and then go argue with them on another. It's all or nothing with that poster. Seems fair to me. Good suggestion, JL.

No, but it WAS Baron who started this thread so clearly new ideas are wanted. And it seems most people like the idea put forth by EPrado. Perhaps some modifications could be made but the overall idea has merit.

Disagreement should NOT be a reason for being banned from a thread rather the APPROACH should be taken into consideration. Stating WHY one disagrees with some actual evidence or analysis should be fine but not "you just don't get it" or "1000's of quants would disagree" blah blah blah should not...

I thought you only attack "ideas" and not "people"? :confused: If this were a hybrid style moderated thread (per my suggestion), you might be receiving your first warning ;)

Can't you use non-gutter language?

I agree with your point of view.

I find this very interesting as well.