Indeed, it is much about your awareness shortcomings...
Last edited:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
New Tax on All Stock Trades
- Thread starter seasideheights
- Start date
Indeed, it is much about your awareness shortcomings...
[/QUOTE]yes, with 11 likes and 9000 posts I see how most would agree with your assessment. You talk shit and cannot back up any of your stupor thats why I put you on ignore . No need to reply as I won't see your reply anymore, unless of course you want to entertain your 11 followers.
thanks for making my point. you can't do the numbers. therefore you sink to calling me names.
here is a perfect example of figures never lie but liars always figure." yes, with 11 likes and 9000 posts I see how most would agree with your assessment." you would have to prove that there is a correlation between the quality of posts and the quantity of likes .
dropping this issue for the moment you have again shown your mathematical ineptitude the 9000 posts are a cumulative feature from the year 2003. this like feature was introduced in august 2014.
therefore the number of posts have to be reduced by approximately 85% (10.25/12 year). we are talking about 1350 posts. i still would not draw any conclusions on its meaning.. the point is to highlight your statistical shenanigans top off by logic failing to prove causation. anyway what is an 85% draw- down between you and phantom friends in HK? it is just another ordinary day for you.
Last edited:
pattern with Voly ?
Macau is cool though. And both cities are next to each other.
Voly, I'd offer you gladly another cookie but so soon before bed might hurt your gracious silhouette.
Let me know what the priest says, is redemption
Your math is utter nonsense. You have way more posts than most other users. So...we all started with a count of zero likes when the feature was Introduced. If your posts contained any quality at all you should get more likes than others even if you posted less later on because most members do not only read new posts but older ones as part of a search as well. Your posts are on average more often seen than mine or others with less post count than you.
And by any count or measure sitting here with 18 likes pretty much disqualifies you from this discussion entirely. You seem to add close to zero value on this website despite you apparently spending every waking minute on this website.
here is a perfect example of figures never lie but liars always figure." yes, with 11 likes and 9000 posts I see how most would agree with your assessment." you would have to prove that there is a correlation between the quality of posts and the quantity of likes .
dropping this issue for the moment you have again shown your mathematical ineptitude the 9000 posts are a cumulative feature from the year 2003. this like feature was introduced in august 2014.
therefore the number of posts have to be reduced by approximately 85% (10.25/12 year). we are talking about 1350 posts. i still would not draw any conclusions on its meaning.. the point is to highlight your statistical shenanigans top off by logic failing to prove causation. anyway what is an 85% draw- down between you and phantom friends in HK? it is just another ordinary day for you.[/QUOTE]
And by any count or measure sitting here with 18 likes pretty much disqualifies you from this discussion entirely. You seem to add close to zero value on this website despite you apparently spending every waking minute on this website.
here is a perfect example of figures never lie but liars always figure." yes, with 11 likes and 9000 posts I see how most would agree with your assessment." you would have to prove that there is a correlation between the quality of posts and the quantity of likes .
dropping this issue for the moment you have again shown your mathematical ineptitude the 9000 posts are a cumulative feature from the year 2003. this like feature was introduced in august 2014.
therefore the number of posts have to be reduced by approximately 85% (10.25/12 year). we are talking about 1350 posts. i still would not draw any conclusions on its meaning.. the point is to highlight your statistical shenanigans top off by logic failing to prove causation. anyway what is an 85% draw- down between you and phantom friends in HK? it is just another ordinary day for you.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]Your math is utter nonsense. You have way more posts than most other users. So...we all started with a count of zero likes when the feature was Introduced. If your posts contained any quality at all you should get more likes than others even if you posted less later on because most members do not only read new posts but older ones as part of a search as well. Your posts are on average more often seen than mine or others with less post count than you.
And by any count or measure sitting here with 18 likes pretty much disqualifies you from this discussion entirely. You seem to add close to zero value on this website despite you apparently spending every waking minute on this website.
here is a perfect example of figures never lie but liars always figure." yes, with 11 likes and 9000 posts I see how most would agree with your assessment." you would have to prove that there is a correlation between the quality of posts and the quantity of likes .
dropping this issue for the moment you have again shown your mathematical ineptitude the 9000 posts are a cumulative feature from the year 2003. this like feature was introduced in august 2014.
therefore the number of posts have to be reduced by approximately 85% (10.25/12 year). we are talking about 1350 posts. i still would not draw any conclusions on its meaning.. the point is to highlight your statistical shenanigans top off by logic failing to prove causation. anyway what is an 85% draw- down between you and phantom friends in HK? it is just another ordinary day for you.
What is your math if you have any?
[/QUOTE]Your math is utter nonsense. You have way more posts than most other users. So...we all started with a count of zero likes when the feature was Introduced. If your posts contained any quality at all you should get more likes than others even if you posted less later on because most members do not only read new posts but older ones as part of a search as well. Your posts are on average more often seen than mine or others with less post count than you.
And by any count or measure sitting here with 18 likes pretty much disqualifies you from this discussion entirely. You seem to add close to zero value on this website despite you apparently spending every waking minute on this website.
here is a perfect example of figures never lie but liars always figure." yes, with 11 likes and 9000 posts I see how most would agree with your assessment." you would have to prove that there is a correlation between the quality of posts and the quantity of likes .
dropping this issue for the moment you have again shown your mathematical ineptitude the 9000 posts are a cumulative feature from the year 2003. this like feature was introduced in august 2014.
therefore the number of posts have to be reduced by approximately 85% (10.25/12 year). we are talking about 1350 posts. i still would not draw any conclusions on its meaning.. the point is to highlight your statistical shenanigans top off by logic failing to prove causation. anyway what is an 85% draw- down between you and phantom friends in HK? it is just another ordinary day for you.
again your lack of mathematical acumen and lack of logic shines brighter than the sun.
"You seem to add close to zero value on this website despite you apparently spending every waking minute on this website."
this is typical of your inability to think logically. you extrapolate from false premises which pop into
your head and then draw incorrect conclusions.
Really? Which part was not logically argued? Please explain Mr. 18
again your lack of mathematical acumen and lack of logic shines brighter than the sun.
"You seem to add close to zero value on this website despite you apparently spending every waking minute on this website."
this is typical of your inability to think logically. you extrapolate from false premises which pop into
your head and then draw incorrect conclusions.[/QUOTE]
again your lack of mathematical acumen and lack of logic shines brighter than the sun.
"You seem to add close to zero value on this website despite you apparently spending every waking minute on this website."
this is typical of your inability to think logically. you extrapolate from false premises which pop into
your head and then draw incorrect conclusions.[/QUOTE]
"your math is utter nonsense. You have way more posts than most other users. So...we all started with a count of zero likes when the feature was Introduced. If your posts contained any quality at all you should get more likes than others even if you posted less later on because most members do not only read new posts but older ones as part of a search as well. Your posts are on average more often seen than mine or others with less post count than you."
as usual you show no proof.
"most members do not only read new posts but older ones as part of a search as well. " you make two assumptions in one sentence both of which could be false. in your universe adding a falsehood to another falsehood creates a truth. enjoy the weekend with your one percenters phantom hk hedge fund friends (people you claim gross one per cent from the market and net .005+after the stamp tax), which mathematically has been proven to be a fabrication.
as usual you show no proof.
"most members do not only read new posts but older ones as part of a search as well. " you make two assumptions in one sentence both of which could be false. in your universe adding a falsehood to another falsehood creates a truth. enjoy the weekend with your one percenters phantom hk hedge fund friends (people you claim gross one per cent from the market and net .005+after the stamp tax), which mathematically has been proven to be a fabrication.
Last edited: