Is Trading Itself a Bad Trade? I Analyzed the Industry- Prove Me Wrong
- Thread starter cityboy12
- Start date
Not bama..he was in palm beach..remember his fishing skiff and pistol pete his fishing buddy..what ever happened to pistol pete?
Last edited:
@cityboy12 deserves kudos for starting a remarkable first post and Thread !
ROFLMAO
It should be: "duologue" between zenostiffler and cityboy12.
When they are busy it makes me think about AA meetings...
Predators...some preliminary case studies
Buffet - very refined (due to his folksy exterior)- https://www.seattletimes.com/busine...how-a-warren-buffett-empire-preys-on-the-poor
I've had a GEICO auto policy for 40 years with no accidents. Recently a woman ran a red light and got in front of my vehicle such that my front corner hit hear rear corner. She had GEICO insurance as well. When GEICO insures both parties, they claim to assign separate adjusters in order to reach a fair determination of insurance liability. The investigating officer concluded that legal fault could not be determined, so I expected GEICO to assign insurance liability equally. It did not. It assigned me full insurance liability because "the other driver controlled the intersection." Right, she controlled it by running a red light.
I protested the decision and submitted video recordings of the signal cycle which demonstrated that my light was green based on a witness intending to go in the opposite direction to the woman being stopped at the light. And also on state law requiring the driver on the left, the woman, to yield. GEICO said it would review the evidence and probably relieve me of liability. Ten days went by. When I inquired, my adjuster's supervisor claimed that he had just left a meeting where "management" reviewed the case, and held firm to the "other driver controlled the intersection" conclusion. Sure you just got out of that meeting. How coincidental.
I am sure that GEICO decision was based on factors relating to its profitability. The woman was 25 years younger and could be a loyal customer far longer than I could. Or she threatened to claim delayed discovery of injuries and GEICO placated her. Either way, fvck GEICO and Buffet.
Buffet - very refined (due to his folksy exterior)- https://www.seattletimes.com/busine...how-a-warren-buffett-empire-preys-on-the-poor
I've had a GEICO auto policy for 40 years with no accidents. Recently a woman ran a red light and got in front of my vehicle such that my front corner hit hear rear corner. She had GEICO insurance as well. When GEICO insures both parties, they claim to assign separate adjusters in order to reach a fair determination of insurance liability. The investigating officer concluded that legal fault could not be determined, so I expected GEICO to assign insurance liability equally. It did not. It assigned me full insurance liability because "the other driver controlled the intersection." Right, she controlled it by running a red light.
I protested the decision and submitted video recordings of the signal cycle which demonstrated that my light was green based on a witness intending to go in the opposite direction to the woman being stopped at the light. And also on state law requiring the driver on the left, the woman, to yield. GEICO said it would review the evidence and probably relieve me of liability. Ten days went by. When I inquired, my adjuster's supervisor claimed that he had just left a meeting where "management" reviewed the case, and held firm to the "other driver controlled the intersection" conclusion. Sure you just got out of that meeting. How coincidental.
I am sure that GEICO decision was based on factors relating to its profitability. The woman was 25 years younger and could be a loyal customer far longer than I could. Or she threatened to claim delayed discovery of injuries and GEICO placated her. Either way, fvck GEICO and Buffet.
Hi guys, this is my first thread and I have never met anyone here before. It is good to see that I have successfully encouraged debate.
Zenostiffel appeared to be a guy who agreed with some of my thought-provoking conclusions (although I have never met or conversed with him before in my life). He appears educated and experienced. I have received other positive posts and likes also if you go back through the thread. I did not, at the outset, expect a majority of people to agree, rather a minority of more intelligent people.
I am sorry to burst your bubble...I have never met anybody called Surf and have no interest here beyond intellectual curiosity (I am not selling training courses, pitching visions/hope, looking for a mentor or trading system or trying to 'convert' anyone..no agenda ...sorry..nothing). Simply, just intelligent discourse.
Sorry but ...no...no conspiracy. So far I have been accused of being:
1. Somebody I am not (who is Surf?)
2. In collusion with a 'sock puppet'/ Abbot and Costello - strange that anyone would go to such lengths if they had no benefit at all?
3. 'Entitled'
4. Been sworn at
5. Called a 'loser'
6. Called a 'failure' and 'no hoper'
7. Other ad hominem attacks
...all of which are untrue...
This is the typical psychology of a base mind. You want to identify me in a 'box' or 'category'...this serves the purpose of:
1. Making you feel better (perhaps building your ego at no effort?) and somehow diminishing me (again without evidence or facts).
2. Reinforcing your current simplified belief system and world-view.
3. It takes away your fear of the unknown.
4. It can act as a rallying point for similar minds.
5. it makes things easier for you to understand rather than having to try to understand complexity.
Instead, why don't you address my arguments/premise? Why are facts so frightening? Almost nobody, so far, beyond some exceptions has responded with logical discourse...
Zenostiffel appeared to be a guy who agreed with some of my thought-provoking conclusions (although I have never met or conversed with him before in my life). He appears educated and experienced. I have received other positive posts and likes also if you go back through the thread. I did not, at the outset, expect a majority of people to agree, rather a minority of more intelligent people.
I am sorry to burst your bubble...I have never met anybody called Surf and have no interest here beyond intellectual curiosity (I am not selling training courses, pitching visions/hope, looking for a mentor or trading system or trying to 'convert' anyone..no agenda ...sorry..nothing). Simply, just intelligent discourse.
Sorry but ...no...no conspiracy. So far I have been accused of being:
1. Somebody I am not (who is Surf?)
2. In collusion with a 'sock puppet'/ Abbot and Costello - strange that anyone would go to such lengths if they had no benefit at all?
3. 'Entitled'
4. Been sworn at
5. Called a 'loser'
6. Called a 'failure' and 'no hoper'
7. Other ad hominem attacks
...all of which are untrue...
This is the typical psychology of a base mind. You want to identify me in a 'box' or 'category'...this serves the purpose of:
1. Making you feel better (perhaps building your ego at no effort?) and somehow diminishing me (again without evidence or facts).
2. Reinforcing your current simplified belief system and world-view.
3. It takes away your fear of the unknown.
4. It can act as a rallying point for similar minds.
5. it makes things easier for you to understand rather than having to try to understand complexity.
Instead, why don't you address my arguments/premise? Why are facts so frightening? Almost nobody, so far, beyond some exceptions has responded with logical discourse...
Last edited:
You can't trade. You interpret the responses as confirmation (bias) that you're correct.
Stiffler is a fraud just like you, Surf. He looks like he fell out of a halfway house. He states that systems don't work and eschews backtesting while he promotes systems on other forums.
Stiffler went to 90% cash before US indices rallied >50%. I am not surprised that you are enamored with him.