I, as well as other members of ET have no problem with a healthy debate. However, you continue to make highly inflammatory statements and claims that are totally unsubstantiated by fact. For example: You indicated in a previous post that ET helped REFCO to mislead people. Care to substantiate your claim with factual evidence? You now state in your last post that it was unintentional due to careless censorship, yet at the end of the day, your statement still reflects YOUR CLAIM that ET helped REFCO mislead people on this website . . . Moreover, how do we even know that it was intentional or unintentionally careless censorship? That's your opinion, and your interpretation. And once again unsupported by fact. You also indicated in a previous post that REFCO instigated ET censorship of your criticisms. I would think that this is a very significant claim/charge being made since it goes to the integrity of Baron and the entire website and the inference that advertisers might be able to censor criticism given their advertising status. ( by the way, REFCO is not an advertiser on ET ). Again, care to substantiate your claim that REFCO instigated ET censorship? What evidence do you have that supports your claim? Do you have taped phone conversations? Do you have copies of correspondance between REFCO and Baron? What factual evidence specifically supports your highly inflammatory claim? In case you forgot your own words . . . here they are from Page 14 of this thread:
My response to Apex Capital's challenge: Much of the evidence against Apex Capital consists of his ET postings re: Refco, which were deleted, and therefore can no longer be viewed. Anyone can still read Apex Capital's non-deleted Elite Trader posts, re: REFCO. They can do this by using Elite Trader's search function. They will be able to verify that Apex Capital admits to a longstanding business relationship with Refco, admits to receiving inside information from Refco, operates as Refco's defender and spokesman on EliteTrader, and posted a pattern of false statements benefiting Refco. His postings threatening litigation have been deleted. It appears he manipulated ET, not thru advertising dollars, but by threatening litigation. One of his postings publicly requested that the "Refco Account Security" thread be closed (Oct 18, 2005, 4:23 pm EST), and after he threatened litigation, it was closed. He soon after defied Baron's instructions by posting, in the "Refco Fallout" thread, information which Baron had already stated was off-topic and forbidden. Apex Capital's off-topic posting was deleted and then soon therafter, that thread was also closed. Apex Capital's very, very effective technique, for disrupting Refco debates on Elitetrader, is to make off-topic personal attacks, which provoke Baron or other administrators to delete posts on both sides of the debate, and also to close entire threads. Apex Capital unofficially acts on Refco's behalf. Refco officially took the position that its books were unreliable, but unofficially, through Apex Capital, Refco simultaneously took an opposite position: Quote from TorontoTrader2: Quote from Apex Capital: Quote from Apex Capital: Refco will obviously disavow any knowledge or responsibility as to Apex Capital's activities, but I think he is their unofficial representative, regardless of whether or not his admitted business relationship with Refco includes compensation for services rendered on ET, and regardless of whether Refco specifically requested such services. Apex Capital falsely stated, at first, that since the Refco fraud was confined to the holding company, the futures unit was unaffected and customer funds were safe, simply because the futures unit was a separate company; and that those arguing the contrary were ignoramuses with axes to grind. This line of defense broke down days later, when customer funds at another separate Refco company, its retail spot FX brokerage, were frozen, so that many ET members still complain they can't get their money back. This made it impossible to argue that the fraud problem was limited to one particular Refco entity. Apex then switched gears, by repeatedly falsely claiming, in many different threads, that customer funds deposited into segregated futures broker accounts were guaranteed by the exchanges and their members, so that there was no danger in keeping funds at Refco. Myself and others had to pound on him, through 50 pages of debate, before he finally admitted there was no guarantee; but he never acknowledged his prior false statements to the contrary, and he continues to word his posts in such a way as to mislead people on this issue. Just yesterday, in this very thread, he posted: Note how Apex no longer explicitly claims that segregated funds are guaranteed, but instead gently misleads the reader to draw that same false conclusion. See my posting of 27 Oct 2005, 10:24 am EST, for solid proof from the CFTC and the CME that segregated customer funds are not guaranteed. Apex also falsely stated that no customer ever lost funds in any futures clearing broker bankruptcy. ET member 2cents then found a link to a joint SEC/CFTC document recounting that such customer losses have happened numerous times, and that the most recent such incident occurred in 1989. We learned from the headlines, just days ago, that Jim Rogers lost hundreds of millions of dollars of client money, and may eventually get back cents on the dollar or nothing, simply because he deposited it into segregated customer accounts at the Refco futures broker. This massive embezzlement from Jim Rogers should eliminate any doubt that everything Apex Capital said, about the safety of customer funds at Refco, is not only absolute rubbish, but a gross misuse and perversion of EliteTrader. I like the following quote from MG01: ET unintentionally helped Apex Capital to help Refco. ET did this by carelessly deleting posts and carelessly closing threads in response to Apex Capital's whining and threats. But ET, by reopening this thread, has demonstrated a willingness to correct mistakes.
Now that's funny! Now you have changed your statement to say that ET helped me . . . to help REFCO. That's not only totally absurd, but it's a far cry from your original statement and claim, and YOU KNOW IT. I have never claimed to be a spokesperson for REFCO, let alone act as an agent for them, unofficially, officially, or otherwise. If you have any factual evidence that supports otherwise, please feel free to substantiate your claim and post accordingly. How ironic that you no longer claim that REFCO instigated ET to censor your criticism. How convenient by you. How many times are you going to change your claims? Do you always change what you claimed once you find yourself boxed into an irrational corner that is not substantiated by FACT, only supposition and innuendo? Not even your twisted sense of logic can rationalize your way out of this one. I am amazed that you can continue to make all sorts of sordid claims and statements . . . yet offer no factual evidence whatsoever to substantiate them. Quite typical.
The information would be sorely missed because I think it is very valuable in its uncensored "raw" format -- if you don't, that's fine each to his own. Btw, why are you here then? As for conducting due diligence here; hell yes. Obviously one has to separate the wheat from the chaff here and on other boards, but that becomes fairly easy to do with a little time. The more one contributes; the more they either identify themselves as a contributor or someone to not pay attention to. Some people contribute greatly and others remove any remaining doubt that they are idiots as they continue to post -- as time goes on, it becomes more and more clear to most readers. Having only discovered this board fairly recently, it's already obvious to me on here of the regular contributors (people posting) who I choose to pay more attention to and who I choose to pay less attention to, or no attention to. I haven't suggested that the issues that are deficiencies of Refco are unique to Refco; I believe unfortunately that Refco is the tip of the iceberg in the Forex spot market. Since I have an account at Refco that is frozen it is a topic of special interest to me at the moment. In fact I think the Forex broker/dealers in the USA need much better regulation and should have some form of insurance as they do in Canada. It's equally clear that having a sounding board and input from many people that are having similar experiences is useful and saves time in not having to repeat the same mistakes. I really wish I had found this board prior to opening an account with Refco -- this board would have probably prevented me from putting money into the Refco account that is "frozen" at the moment. With respect to differentiating between regulated Refco and unregulated Refco, it seems people with a lot more financial horsepower and a lot more at stake than I have are having a difficult time determining why Refco moved money away from the regulated unit to RCM. This in the last couple of business days has been all over the news: http://www.leadingthecharge.com/stories/news-0093102.html http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/1101refco01.html Based on the number of suits filed by large customers of Refco it would seem clear that there are some real irregularities in the treatment of customer deposits in the regulated units as well as those that are unregulated. Btw, what is your agenda? It would seem pretty silly to defend Refco at this point -- it appears people there are going to go to jail -- at the least they are a very poorly run company that has evidence of mismanagement at all levels. Why on earth would you defend them now as the ship is sinking, errr correction; already sunk?
Yet another FALSE CLAIM that is totally unsubstantiated by any FACTS. As stated previously, Baron is his own boss. Baron has never been provoked by me, nor have other administrators of this website been pressured or provoked to delete posts or close entire threads. Please feel free to provide proof otherwise. My educated guess is that you can't.
I think it's a much better place. You can't interact with a mainstream media outlet. You can interact here and get clarification -- I think it's a super resource.
There was no line of defense that broke down regarding the futures unit and segregated accounts. The futures unit was unaffected. That is a fact. To this day, I am still able to trade my own personal segregated futures account on Refco Pro. Moreover, the fact that a family member of mine withdrew $25,000 out of their segregated futures account at REFCO LLC., on October 24th and had a check Fed-Ex'd to them the very next day which cleared a California bank is proof positive that the futures unit was not frozen, and thus unaffected. Thus, your statement is unequivocably and absolutely shown to be FALSE.
Baron, I would like to suggest that you take a good look at the thriving, productive, constructive, truth-seeking, gentlemanly content of this thread, as it existed until Apex Capital became intensely involved. I would further like to suggest that you compare those positives to what happened to the content of this thread after it received a fatal injection of Apex Capital. I would then suggest that you keep this comparison in my mind, while thinking carefully about what you want Elite Trader to be, and how best to achieve that goal.
Apparently one part of the consideration that FXCM would get for buying out Refco's 35% interest in FXCM is the customer base of RefcoFX. FXCM operates in the same location as RefcoFX and apparently licensed their software to RefcoFX so there would be a seamless transition for RefcofX customers to go to FXCM.