I obviously gave you too much credit.Quote from ARogueTrader:
"Even you could figure this out."
What an anal retentive nit picker. Did you try it yourself? Here, get your stopwatch out:Quote from ARogueTrader:
No, two minutes is not sufficient to begin the search RS7/Error's posts, then look for a response from you, then read the post to find acrimony, then go back to the search and repeat that process 25 times.
In two minutes there are 120 seconds. Divide that by 25 times, and you get 4.8 seconds. 4.8 seconds to find Error's post, then scroll to find your response, assuming there was one at all, then read it to find acrimony, then go back to the find the next post to examine?
No, 2 minutes is not sufficient to perform the task you said you performed.[/B]
Quote from max401:
I obviously gave you too much credit.
What an anal retentive nit picker. Did you try it yourself? Here, get your stopwatch out:
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=243972
First of all, I never left the search page after I opened it. There were 8 posts from threads I never even posted to, and 13 posts from threads I already knew were not acrimonious in the entirety thereof. These were instantly eliminated, there were only four posts left.
Two minutes? I opened the search results and starting at the bottom, I eliminated 18 posts. There are only 7 left to figure out. The "Boxter or Z4? " thread, not bothering to look at it, I note that as #1.
6 left.
I eliminate the next three posts from the "Carlin Financial Prop Position" thread. Never posted to it.
3 left.
The next post is from this thread, I know I made a wisecrack response so that's post #2.
2 left.
The next post is from this thread and RS7 prints a lengthy dissertation and mentions my handle several times, so I don't count my response as qualifying.
Done.
I'd say it took less than 2 minutes.
LOL! Besides your transparent argumentative method of spouting "facts" that have absolutely no foundation, how hard could it be to simply remember not having posted to a thread? Would that be too difficult for you?Quote from ARogueTrader:
Yes, it took you less than 2 minutes because you had kept close track of each of Error's posts, and what it was that you responded to.
Thank you for confirming my initial claim of your obsessiveness.
Like someone who has studied for intensely for a test, they need just a moment to refresh their mind before taking the test. I have no doubt that you had this information of all 25 posts fresh in your mind, due to your obsessive relationship with the person who posts as Error/RS7.
Quote from max401:
LOL! Besides your transparent argumentative method of spouting "facts" that have absolutely no foundation, how hard could it be to simply remember not having posted to a thread? Would that be too difficult for you?
So right at the moment you read this sentence for the first time, you have no idea whether or not you have posted to the thread titled: "Compare my ES performance to a futures benchmark or cash?"Quote from ARogueTrader:
IIn answer to your condescending question, no it would not be difficult remembering if I had posted to a thread or not....if that post was a truly meaningfully and important experience in my life.
Quote from max401:
So right at the moment you read this sentence for the first time, you have no idea whether or not you have posted to the thread titled: "Compare my ES performance to a futures benchmark or cash?"
Nope.
The transparency in your debating "technique" is obvious as it is wanting. You spout self spun "facts" that are in error that fit the false premise that you are attempting to propagate.
Nice try. However, claiming that a so called "technique" is obvious and wanting is itself a technique and method of argumentation that in itself fails. This method works on the weak minded, who become easily confused. They forget about the so called error called into question, and forget that the error is not refuted with either fact or logic.
Once again another demonstration of the denial of an obsessive compulsive addict in action, and by way of this denial by attack further strengthens the argument I put forth concerning your obsessive and addictive behaviors.
Often their first (and only) line of defense when their failings are easily and obviously pointed out, is to attack the person who points them out, claiming them to be wrong.....yet not really providing any evidence to back up their claims.
You can usually tell when someone is "outed" when they fall back on minor technicalities over the commons sense approach to discovering truth that anyone can employ to figure out the obsessive and compulsive behavior. They become angry and hostile, and eventually resort to full blown ad hominem attacks or other methods to minimize the person....not the point the person is making.
So Max, go ahead and flame on, it just continues to nail the point down as your emotionalism highlights the inner state of denial.
[/B]