Quote from Richtrader: "You have a lot of nerve posting this. You were more responsible for bringing that thread down than anyone. Even after being asked multiple times by myself and others to discontinue the repetitive attacks and questions, you continued to do so, for reasons that must extend beyond that thread. For me to move that thread to chit chat because you did not like his premise or posts and thus decided to ruin the thread by attacking him would not be right. The thread would've died long ago had you not continued your attacks. The way to decide the value of a thread is to ignore it if it doesn't appeal to you, not ruin it to try and get it off the board." Richtrader, I ( as well as several others ) questioned the numerous postings from James Stock, how he manages the inherent risk of his naked call position, and his statement regarding his amazing ability to sell "naked" calls for a finite amount of risk. Please tell me how such a FALSE premise adds value to this website? You have implied that I, or any other member for that matter on ET should not ask specific questions regarding someone's position, their methodology for putting that position on, or their ability to manage the risk in that particular position. You also state that I was wrong for doing so. You also state that the best way to show if a thread is of not of any VALUE is to simply ignore it, and not try and have it removed to Chit-Chat. I'm sorry but I totally disagree with your statements above. If someone were to advocate driving 100 MPH in front of an elementary school, would you allow that statement to stand? If such a statement were to stand on ET, would that not tarnish the credibility of the website? I would strongly maintain that false premises should be questioned. Last time I checked, this was a Democracy. Or did you not wish to question George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, George Tenet, and Donald Rumsfield about WMD merely because it would have the "appearance" of attacking the current Administration and looking "unpatriotic"?
You are contradicting yourself. I originally referenced the below quote in which you are saying that members should not be able to post things which lack credibility: I took umbrage in particular to the statement about moderators needing to be much more vigilant. That argument aside, and taking your two quotes from above, you are saying that you should have the right to question someone's credibility, but people without credibility should not have the right to post. What is the litmus test for credibility? Where does one draw the line?
01-12-04 11:44 PM Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The S&P looks very toppy -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote from riskarb: uh huh... small, finite credit in exchange for infinite risk. I suggest you trade them to the limit of your account. arb. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote from Jame Stock: Again, "small finite credit in exchange for infinite risk" is according to you. I disagree. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rich, this was on Page 2 of a thread that ran for 30 PAGES for Christ's Sake! It was an underlying FALSE premise to an obscure methodology ( never fully described by the author ) that was questioned by many people, not just me, and I get criticized for asking specific questions about how this guy intends to manage his risk, especially with an upcoming expiration in which it was entirely possible that the Calls could be in the money as the SPX drove thru the strike?
I think that many people operate under the misguided notion that if they "know" what the market is going to do it will mean they will make money. I think all of us who have traded for some time know that is not true, but its a nice little thing to tell yourself sometimes. But, its not important what the market will do, its important what you will do, and thats all that will make you money.