This claim in and of itself blows up the spot for the rest of the article. Wikipedia as the benchmark, eh? Right, like back in the day when Tesla's vastly inferior Alternating Current technology was quite organically suppressed by Westinghouse-backed Edison's Direct Current. Tesla was just a mediocre, paranoid douche. Like those cranky bastards who came up with quantum mechanics, more theoretical alchemy which had to grudge-f*ck the Theory of Relativity in order to advance its pretensive agenda. Right, because all science is privately-funded, with no ulterior motives from any financiers involved to 'game' the findings for Darwinistic economic endeavours. No competitive or 'greed' impulses consistent with typical business ventures. âWhen youâre one step ahead of the crowd youâre a genius. When youâre two steps ahead, youâre a crackpot.â â Shlomo Riskin While the great unwashed masses of this fine forum labels contrarians like Jack a 'Crank', since 'truth' is determined by majority vote, I'll gladly be a sacrificial lamb to the 'Crank' cause. What a crock of sh*t. Nice critical thinking skills, boys.
No, but there is a standard jargon which cranks tend to ignore. Like when a certain poster insists on misdefining the word 'fractal' to mean what every other trader means by 'timeframe'. Not all conspiracies are a crock. Not only are conspiracies often real, they are oftentimes crimes, and can be prosecuted. The problem arises when someone suspected of being a crank insists that the 'conspiracy' to silence him is proof that he is right. No, actual evidence validating his theory is proof that he is right, not the claim that some people are antagonistic against his theory. Whether or not this true, the quantum mechanicists never claimed that SR and GR were somehow invalid. Let's cut to the chase. Jack has put forth a theory of trading with no coherent core. If he really wanted to educate, he would post a thread here or publish an article elsewhere explaining his ideas in a straightforward comprehensive manner. People wouldn't have to hunt through hundreds if not thousands of posts to try to piece together what the hell he was talking about. He would explain all unconventional terms before using them because the goal would be illumination, not obfuscation. Most importantly, there would be some evidence supporting audacious claims like three times the average daily range in profits. A basic axiom of science is Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Cranks and charlatans avoid extraordinary evidence like the plague. Jack avoids extraordinary evidence like the plague. Do the math.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person) " According to these authors, virtually universal characteristics of cranks include: Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important. Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial. Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, being uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions. Some cranks lack academic achievement, in which case they typically assert that academic training in the subject of their crank belief is not only unnecessary for discovering the truth, but actively harmful because they believe it poisons the minds by teaching falsehoods. Others greatly exaggerate their personal achievements, and may insist that some achievement (real or alleged) in some entirely unrelated area of human endeavor implies that their cranky opinion should be taken seriously. Some cranks claim vast knowledge of any relevant literature, while others claim that familiarity with previous work is entirely unnecessary; regardless, cranks inevitably reveal that whether or not they believe themselves to be knowledgeable concerning relevant matters of fact, mainstream opinion, or previous work, they are not in fact well-informed concerning the topic of their belief. In addition, many cranks: seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe that they are objecting, stress that they have been working out their ideas for many decades, and claim that this fact alone entails that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error, compare themselves with Galileo or Copernicus , implying that the mere unpopularity of some belief is in itself evidence of plausibility, claim that their ideas are being suppressed, typically by secret intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their revolutionary insights becoming widely known, appear to regard themselves as persons of unique historical importance. Cranks who contradict some mainstream opinion in some highly technical field, such as mathematics or physics, frequently: exhibit a marked lack of technical ability, misunderstand or fail to use standard notation and terminology, ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understand mainstream belief. That is, cranks tend to ignore any previous insights which have been proven by experience to facilitate discussion and analysis of the topic of their cranky claims; indeed, they often assert that these innovations obscure rather than clarify the situation.[3] In addition, cranky scientific theories do not in fact qualify as theories as this term is commonly understood within science. For example, crank theories in physics typically fail to result in testable predictions, which makes them unfalsifiable and hence unscientific. Or the crank may present their ideas in such a confused, not even wrong manner that it is impossible to determine what they are actually claiming. Perhaps surprisingly, many cranks may appear quite normal when they are not passionately expounding their cranky belief, and they may even be successful in careers unrelated to their cranky beliefs. "
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/6MT3CihStFQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>