Canadian FX Brokers
- Thread starter TruNorth
- Start date
To keep with the sexist theme, Man Financial Canada http://www.manfinancialfx.ca/
You can often spot posters worth ignoring via one or more of the following classical crank attributes:
Righteousness
They are unwilling to be mistaken. They never acknowledge error,
even on trivial matters. Even when presented with literal quotes
from their own earlier postings, about the most you will get is a
non-denial denial that they wrote it.
Evasion
Despite their incredible volumes of postings, they never seem to
have time to respond to pointed remarks that expose flaws in their
arguments. When they quote from on-target articles, they only copy
irrelevant text. Changing the topic (misdirection) is a mainstay of
their technique.
Blathering
Argument by repetition, unsupported claim, context-dropping and
spin-doctoring: They rely on "facts" not in evidence and never seem
to have time to post in-context references that might support their
conclusions. Anything quoted is out of context, and may not even be
from a discussion on the same topic. They stubbornly assume that
their interpretation is the only correct one.
Double Standards
They threaten others whose articles are actually less offensive than
their own.
Libel
Their articles often contain actionable material.
Amnesia
They are incapable of remembering their past errors and lies, much
less adjusting their behaviour to avoid repeating previous outrages.
Hostility
They indirectly acknowledge the weakness of their position by
resorting to all the normal underhanded tricks of incompetent
debaters, plus copious volumes of ad hominem; from simple
name-calling to sophmoric psychological judgementalism.
Idiolectic
Just because it looks like English, don't assume it is, depending on
how you define "is".
Obsessed and Disconnected
After you've been reading their stuff for a while, you begin to
realize that they seem to be driven by some central theme, but are
writing in what is ultimately just a /simulation/ of a human
language. It looks vaguely familiar on the surface, but is not
firmly connected to reality, much less the topic at hand.
Expletives
Their command of their language is so weak, and the intellectual
content of their prose is so vacuous, that they have to "punch it
up" with words intended to mock, provoke, shock and/or hurt. Without
those words, they'd have a great deal less to say.
Cluelessness
They are fully capable of reading all of the above, and failing to
recognize that they meet most or all of these criteria.
Righteousness
They are unwilling to be mistaken. They never acknowledge error,
even on trivial matters. Even when presented with literal quotes
from their own earlier postings, about the most you will get is a
non-denial denial that they wrote it.
Evasion
Despite their incredible volumes of postings, they never seem to
have time to respond to pointed remarks that expose flaws in their
arguments. When they quote from on-target articles, they only copy
irrelevant text. Changing the topic (misdirection) is a mainstay of
their technique.
Blathering
Argument by repetition, unsupported claim, context-dropping and
spin-doctoring: They rely on "facts" not in evidence and never seem
to have time to post in-context references that might support their
conclusions. Anything quoted is out of context, and may not even be
from a discussion on the same topic. They stubbornly assume that
their interpretation is the only correct one.
Double Standards
They threaten others whose articles are actually less offensive than
their own.
Libel
Their articles often contain actionable material.
Amnesia
They are incapable of remembering their past errors and lies, much
less adjusting their behaviour to avoid repeating previous outrages.
Hostility
They indirectly acknowledge the weakness of their position by
resorting to all the normal underhanded tricks of incompetent
debaters, plus copious volumes of ad hominem; from simple
name-calling to sophmoric psychological judgementalism.
Idiolectic
Just because it looks like English, don't assume it is, depending on
how you define "is".
Obsessed and Disconnected
After you've been reading their stuff for a while, you begin to
realize that they seem to be driven by some central theme, but are
writing in what is ultimately just a /simulation/ of a human
language. It looks vaguely familiar on the surface, but is not
firmly connected to reality, much less the topic at hand.
Expletives
Their command of their language is so weak, and the intellectual
content of their prose is so vacuous, that they have to "punch it
up" with words intended to mock, provoke, shock and/or hurt. Without
those words, they'd have a great deal less to say.
Cluelessness
They are fully capable of reading all of the above, and failing to
recognize that they meet most or all of these criteria.
168,
Yeah, I agree. UBS
I looked at CMC's platform yesterday and uninstalled it soon after. I had left a call with GFT yesterday about whether they allow CAD currency accounts and got a call back from someone with Raymond James Financial Service, 2 North Riversie Plaza.
Sounds as centralized as Primerica, doesn't it?
"Karl"
Yeah, I agree. UBS
I looked at CMC's platform yesterday and uninstalled it soon after. I had left a call with GFT yesterday about whether they allow CAD currency accounts and got a call back from someone with Raymond James Financial Service, 2 North Riversie Plaza.
Sounds as centralized as Primerica, doesn't it?
"Karl"
No need to contact their introducing brokers (or whatever Raymond James FS might be).
Here you go ...
www.gftforex.com/support/funds/wire.asp
Here you go ...
www.gftforex.com/support/funds/wire.asp