SP500 - High Probability predictions for 2016

Oh, and just to let you know @i am nobody , at the open I went short at 1856, covered and went long at 1842, and am still holding onto those longs. Pretty fucking sweet eh? I captured the entire move!
 
I will leave you in your kindergarten. On ignore because this level of discussion is too high for me.

I went short and lost 75 points. Happy now? Best to leave me alone or I will ruin your threads too. It's up to you now.
 
i am nobody said:
I will leave you in your kindergarten. On ignore because this level of discusiion is too high for me.

I went short and lost 75 points. Happy now? Best to leave me alone or I will ruin your threads too.
More...
Finally. I didn't think your ego would actually allow you to just let go. And don't worry, your little jab of putting me on ignore didn't bother my ego one bit.
 
romik said:
What he is saying is as you criticize Schizo's performance, yet don't post your own in same manner as Schizo, makes your claims invalid. Clearly an assumption on his part, yet it's quite normal behaviour being sceptical of something that is quite hard to near impossible to achieve. We are all sceptical at times, hey, what about Dynamo walking on water? Are you sceptical of that one? Is that a trick or can he really walk on water?

Peace brothers. Peace!
More...

If I criticize the only thing that is important is: do I have arguments and are they valid?

The validity cannot depend from the fact wether I am a supertrader or an idiot. The arguments are valid or not, no matter who or what I am.

The logic that is followed here is:
  1. if I am supertrader the arguments are valid.
  2. if I am loser the arguments are not valid.
Can someone explain me the link between validity and my qualifications as trader? Because I don't get it.
The validity of the arguments can change depending on posting trades or not???????
If I post the arguments are valid, and by not posting these same arguments suddenly become not valid????
 
i am nobody said:
If I criticize the only thing that is important is: do I have arguments and are they valid?

The validity cannot depend from the fact wether I am a supertrader or an idiot. The arguments are valid or not, no matter who or what I am.

The logic that is followed here is:
  1. if I am supertrader the arguments are valid.
  2. if I am loser the arguments are not valid.
Can someone explain me the link between validity and my qualifications as trader? Because I don't get it.
The validity of the arguments can change depending on posting trades or not???????
More...

You are fighting the obvious human psyche here, if Jesus didn't do all the things he supposedly did, then would he have such a following so many years later? To get people to BELIEVE you have to show, that's how humans operate, you know that, right?
 
romik said:
You are fighting the obvious human psyche here, if Jesus didn't do all the things he supposedly did, then would he have such a following so many years later? To get people to BELIEVE you have to show, that's how humans operate, you know that, right?
More...

I am agnostic. People don't have to believe me. They agree or disagree with my ARGUMENTS. And they can tell why they disagree. Not posting is complete nonsense as argument why my arguments are not valid. Supertraders can have non valid arguments too. So, posting or not, has no relevance when it concerns the validity of the arguments.
Crooks must try to convince people with non relevant things. Look at Madoff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top