While the children mud fight, I shall address an accusation of the A-Team against the B-Team: that they disparage the method precisely because they know it works and fear the popularization of its use. I think there is a core of truth to that accusation.
Personally, I find it necessary to keep the negativity going b/c its easier than doing any real work of my own
A most astute observation. Interestingly enough, it was Dr. Kraepelin who was the first to distinguish the three clinical varieties of schizophrenia, one of them being hebephrenia: http://www.answers.com/topic/emil-kraepelin Although you will not find it in the above hyperlink, a hallmark symptom of hebephrenic schizophrenia is neologism, which, simply put, is the fabrication of nonsensical words. I find it fascinating that Mr. Hershey has created an entire vocabulary to accommodate his trading methods by choosing to disregard more standard, but equally discriptive, definitions. However, that is neither here nor there. More compelling is what appears to be, to the untrained eye, a very large number of spelling errors in his posts. One may posit, however, that these are words newly minted by Jack himself since, as a noted scholar, he is unlikely to make such childish grade school spelling errors. Thus, it follows that they are indeed not errors. They are the evolution of the Hershey vocabulary. Did I mention neologism?
Supergrass, not yet. Think on it. If I have a winning method, I want no one using it for entries, but everyone using it for exits. A part of the method, which I decline to identify, offers killer entrance signals. Successful traders want no competition for entries, but the impetus of the crowd for exits.
I wonder whether the guru's neologisms aren't like an animal that urinates on things for territorial reasons. It may be the human analogue -- by renaming things we hope to take possession of them.
I dont want to think about anything substantive, I just want to join the bandwagon and complain. About what really, I do not know
There is the bully thing.... Bullies treat people above them with great favor, they typically are supplying negative info to their bosses about people on their own level, and bullies treat people on their own level and on lower levels badly, with indifference at the very least. I think that one guru here frustrates the bullies because he just is not open to negative info about people, in fact he doesn't have an organization they can join and manipulate. Am I on to something here? Are they attacking this one guru way disproportionately? Perhaps they go into other guru's rooms and attack people that are trading there but not the guru? Ok, it's back to my happy place now, I am definitely enjoying the "Life's a playground" camp.
Dr. Kraepelin, During the early part of Soros' career he studied at the London School of Economics and his hero/mentor there was a Dr. Karl Popper. Popper made many contributions to both philosophy and economics. In the face of existentialism Popper claimed that it is 'impossible to know the real truth'. However, Popper suggested that although it is impossible to know the exact truth; it is possible to measure error. For example, the triumph of Einstein over Newton is not because Einstein's work is in any way 'exactly' true in a final sense; but that Einsteinâs view of the world contains 'less error' than the world of Newton. Over time, Einstein's contributions will be surpassed by others who will offer new explanations containing 'less error'. To address, your remarks above. The B-Team should not have to 'prove' the Hershey method works, only pointing out statements that are false on their stating goes a long way to identify error in the arguments. Also, in a court of law the burden of proof is upon the state; however in the court of public opinion the burden of proof is upon the author. Soros appeared to be guided by Popper and applied the tools of measuring error instead of trying to find the exact truth. This always seemed practical to me. Jackâs postings leave a lot of error to measure. It can only be done one statement at a time. Thank you for your patience.