In honor of my Brother Candle, I thought it might be interesting to start a poll. For lack of a better subject I figured maybe it would be interesting to see what if any percentage of us who frequent the Chit Chat forum actually read the cut and paste jobs form MSFE/Wild I personally wouldn't mind seeing what MSFE himself has to say about issues. Any viewpoint can be interesting. Agreeing with them is another thing, but just listening never hurt anyone. But alas, MSFE prefers to quote and quote and quote and quote. What if he SPOKE instead of QUOTE? VOTE THE QUOTES FOLKS!! Now this is not to say that there aren't guys that speak for themselves who also, to me, make posts that are a bit difficult to struggle through. For example, I think Crazy Harry's posts are usually not all that valuable. Or maybe they are, but they are a bit difficult to make sense of. Of course Harry's English is much better than my Martian. Same with Murray T. Turtle. As I once mentioned before, it is possible that Murray may have the most valuable advice on trading and life of anyone here. But personally, I really can't tell without an interpreter. And I have yet to find a competent one. I wonder how these guys fare in their trading. Is there a "home planet advantage" in this game? Peace, RS
It all depends on who the author of the article is, and/or what publication it is from. If it is from the a well known respectable source, preferable U.S. based (yes, I still think the New York Times is respectable) I will give it a quick read to see if it has something new to say.
Good point. I guess I have become too prejudiced to get so far as to even look at the source anymore. Of course I agree that the NY Times is a respectable source. However, I am absolutely sure that when MSFE/Wild quotes from the Times, those who's opinions he is trying to sway most believe the Times is as legitimate as you and I think the Globe or the Enquirer are. Ain't that so AAA? Kymer? (and the many other "true believers in the cause for Truth Justice and the American Way") Peace, RS
I am very open to new ideas and new concepts. I posted a piece somewhere by Norman Mailer, and while I think he is fast becoming a borderline personality (maybe having taken too many blows to the head in his persuit of fully understanding the world of boxing), it was a good read and gave me a different angle to consider.
Here's is what I have been wondering: Why is MSFE here? He only posts propaganda type, anti american articles from european rags, he is not an American citizen and i have never seen him actually talk about a trading issue.....I believe he and a few others are here just to bash america at any and all opportunity.....but my question is why? Why use ET? Why not go to AOl or yahoo????
I agree. As I have said before, I rarely agree with a word from Rush Limbaugh, but I listen to him when I have the chance. I find him highly entertaining, and sometimes he will make a statement that will actually make me stop and think. Bill O' Reilly...same, thing. However I take him more seriously than Rush. And agree with a far greater percentage of what he says. The "poll" about MSFE/Wild is really just for amusement more than a serious issue. I don't generally pay any attention to what he says, because I know his only cause is to be provocative and annoying to all Americans. Big deal! Lots of Anti-American sentiment in the world today as always. I just find it amusing that he takes the time and the bandwidth to rehash the same horse shit day in and day out. To me, here is a guy who exercises a freedom of expression and a right to dissent that exemplifies American style rights to the ultimate. But his attitude seems to be that we Americans live in a horrible and unjust society. Pretty self destructive argument for this particular guy. But, like us all, he can share our freedom of expression. And complain about our system at the same time. I would love to see him do that in some of the societies he seems to hold in higher regard than ours. Each to their own. Peace, RS
That's the same with 777... He's either critisizing someone else's point without stating his own point... He's either posting political cut/paste.... He's either posting funny pictures... I've never actually seen Wild or 777 post or reply a legitimate thought about trading... Or is Wild 777's alter ego...
It is pretty difficult to imagine Rush, Coulter, et. al. ever agreeing with anything that would go against party line, so while I listen to them, their arguments all come down to some very basic concepts, which seem to me to be based in mostly Christian Right Wing Fundamentalist precepts. To me they fall goosestep in line with good Christian Soldiers marching into war. They view Reagan as some kind of a god, and Clinton as the devil. A bit too "got it all figured out" thought going on there. I also notice that Rush rarely, if ever has on a guest who is liberal, and a degree of intellect superior to Rush. He likes to win more than anything else. One of the games they play (and of course it is about ratings and entertainment) is they love to get on a stupid persona who spouts liberalism, gets overly emotional, and is incapable of actually forming an argument on the basis of common sense. The same would be true for purely liberal talk show hosts, if there were any, they would have on redneck right wingers to make fun of them too. I do listen to Alan Combs on the radio, and he does appear to think independently, if not to the left of center. I deem him more of a moderate, but sitting next to Sean Hannity (who in my opinion is a dolt---I saw him with Bill Buckley, and Hannity was spouting some pure flag waving stuff, and Buckley simply waved his hand and Hannity cowered) anyone appears left of his right. I find O'Reilly entertaining....and actually think he is a bit more balanced than most of those who lean to the conservative side. Bill tries to be common sensical about his ideas, if not a bit too full of himself in the process. I do also like Chris Mathews, but since he moved to MSNBC, I don't catch him as often. Tim Russert? What an oily, smarmy, unctuous Bohunk he is (no offense to Bohunks----but the term seems to fit quite well).