That was never the issue, was it? The question was whether I could without mods, especially, tagging my posts with one liner responses devoid of substance. I'd much prefer substantive, opposing viewpoints, containing meritorious points of consideration, if there were no rule outright banning trolling one line liners. Or even if there were.
That may have been YOUR question. Certainly wasn't mine. I did not moderate anything in your post, so leave the "moderator" out of it. I have just as much right to make a comment as you do - or anyone else does for that matter. And my question (which you still haven't answered) is - at what point do you stop with the negative posts? When the market breaks old highs? Or do you keep them up forever, like SouthAmerica - posting about the fall of Rome until one day, but freakish chance, you are correct?
BLSH = Stocktrad3r, but just the other side of the coin. However, BLSH tries to sound more intelligent than Stocktrad3r by endlessly quoting any bearish article he can find. BLSH had gained some cred when he was riding the wave down, but when he continued his uber-bearish stance with S&P below 700, and continues to this day as the S&P has risen over 40%, he has as much cred as Stockrad3r. Clearly he only benefitted from the broken clock syndrome. His MO is now to reply with some dimwitted trashtalk after I once again highlight that his relevance mirrors Stocktrad3r behind his facade of quotations.
I agree, the comparison is uncanny insofar as one is perma bullish, and the other bearish. But BLSH provides intelligent thought, commentary and interesting articles to read. I just wish he'd be more balanced. It gets silly reading all these "Recession will be worse than thought" articles when the market is pushing 7 up days in a row with no end in sight. stock_trad3r is just an idiot who only starts threads with "buy buy buy" and then leaves while the flames rise in his wake. He's entertaining, i suppose, but in a different manner.
This will be my last attempt making a point that I think you already understand, so continue on if you wish. My posts, whether an article, or commentary, nearly always have substance. This once was no different. In response to an article about Martin Feldman's call on a possible double-dip recession, and other itinerant risks to the U.S. economy, you responded with a very shallow, very useless, one line quip questioning if I'd quit posting presumably bearish content if the S&P broke 1400. Did you not? And if so, what did it add to the conversation. I'd rather have you say "thank you for posting a substantive post, regarding a prominent economist who also was a chief economic adviser to President Reagan at one time, even if I disagree with his assessment for reasons X, Y and Z," and be on your way. But, in the end, you are correct in your ultimate assessment, which is something we both agree upon; You have the right to act idiotically, and add nothing of substance whatsoever, if you'd rather so choose.
I know is name... I've known it for 25 yrs. He still couldn't make a living from a dead start. Nor could you.
Do you know Norman? Norman is one of my neighbors. He'll get a great kick from this exchange. You are such a fool.