Al Brooks method

[Xela]

It's not expensive to maintain a simple site.

Indeed not: it's typically more expensive to have someone else do it for you, but outsourcing website maintenance is perhaps very suitable and convenient for someone whose time is much more valuable? People with technical skills are often working for people with ideas, after all?

 

[smallStops]

Indeed not: it's typically more expensive to have someone else do it for you, but outsourcing website maintenance is perhaps very suitable and convenient for someone whose time is much more valuable? People with technical skills are often working for people with ideas, after all?

Not as much as one would believe : nowdays with all the third world professionals offering freelancing,
it is peanuts.

 

[marketsurfer]

Indeed not: it's typically more expensive to have someone else do it for you, but outsourcing website maintenance is perhaps very suitable and convenient for someone whose time is much more valuable? People with technical skills are often working for people with ideas, after all?

Yes, absolutely--- but personally, I wouldn't let my "web guy" solicit donations on my site-- but that is just me.
peace, surf

 

[Xela]

personally, I wouldn't let my "web guy" solicit donations on my site-- but that is just me.

Not just you: I totally agree with you about that. I think it looks really unprofessional and should definitely be avoided.

 

[GiantDog]

Yes, absolutely--- but personally, I wouldn't let my "web guy" solicit donations on my site-- but that is just me.
peace, surf

The site where "donations" are being asked for is owned by someone other than Al Brooks. He just does his seminar stuff from that site. He does have his own site though where he gouges, I mean charges $$$ for his webinar tapes or whatever the hell he sells. And his books of course. Like all vendors, he's just trying to make a buck. Most vendors suck of course. We all know that!

 

[Xela]

The site where "donations" are being asked for is owned by someone other than Al Brooks.

Correct.

He does have his own site though where he gouges, I mean charges $$$ for his webinar tapes or whatever the hell he sells.

On his "course" site, he sells a video-course which is way more approachable and understandabe than his three main textbooks, which even enthusiasts like me freely admit are "very heavy going" (but still excellent).

Most vendors suck of course. We all know that!

I won't dispute that, certainly.

Thank God for the occasional exceptions like Al, whose vending is very much an afterthought to his own trading (he was an ophthalmology professor before giving up his surgical career for trading because he earned so much more from that: he just likes a bit of teaching, too, which I can understand, in his case).

Not sure I'd even be making a living at all without all his input.

 

[Q3D]

Correct.





On his "course" site, he sells a video-course which is way more approachable and understandabe than his three main textbooks, which even enthusiasts like me freely admit are "very heavy going" (but still excellent).





I won't dispute that, certainly.

Thank God for the occasional exceptions like Al, whose vending is very much an afterthought to his own trading (he was an ophthalmology professor before giving up his surgical career for trading because he earned so much more from that: he just likes a bit of teaching, too, which I can understand, in his case).

Not sure I'd even be making a living at all without all his input.

One can't assume his vending is an afterthought to his own trading, unless he presents evidence, as any professor would tell their students. There is no verifiable evidence he trades now or in the past.

 

[Xela]

There is no verifiable evidence he trades

I don't assume it: I happen to know it. (I accept, of course, that you don't.)

I don't disagree with your general attitude toward "vendors" at all, and am well aware that it's very often completely valid and correct.

I also think that in Al's case the position is fairly clear. His previous career, at least, is a matter of public record, and nobody with a big family to support gives up a career like that without a more successful alternative one. And then there's the little matter that so many trading forums are full of people like myself attributing their own success in some large part to Al's teaching, all the glowing reviews of his books at Amazon, and so on. To someone not closed-minded, it's pretty easily apparent that he's very much one of the "good guys" - but all that's just my own opinion; yours, of course, is different.

 

[Q3D]

I don't assume it: I happen to know it. (I accept, of course, that you don't.)

I don't disagree with your general attitude toward "vendors" at all, and am well aware that it's very often completely valid and correct.

I also think that in Al's case the position is fairly clear. His previous career, at least, is a matter of public record, and nobody with a big family to support gives up a career like that without a more successful alternative one. And then there's the little matter that so many trading forums are full of people like myself attributing their own success in some large part to Al's teaching, all the glowing reviews of his books at Amazon, and so on. To someone not closed-minded, it's pretty easily apparent that he's very much one of the "good guys" - but all that's just my own opinion; yours, of course, is different.

Please list the premises from which the epistemological certainly of the veracity of Brooks' extraordinary claims of successful day trading are derived from.

I see heterosexual and highly-credentialed man as the premises from your previous post.

 

[onemoreshot]

Blah blah blah premises.....blah blah blah epistemological......blah blah blah veracity....blah blah blah extraordinary blah blah blah derived.

Too big of words for me to get.