This is why I (and perhaps others) think of you as a person of compromised IQ... First, in answer to your question, I am the person who used the term paranoid....because it seems appropriate to characterize your behavior that way. Once again, and for the last time. If you spend your time counting the minutes between my post and yours and worrying about your ability to edit a post, THIS is what I call paranoid behavior...get some help.. Frankly I cannot help you with the rest of your many issues. Nor do I give a damn at this point Good luck sir, have a wonderful life Steve
You seem to give a damn enough to troll around for posts. But agreed, your thinking and your talking seem unhinged.
I haven't "agreed" with you on anything. Apparently you are delusional as well as paranoid. Please keep on posting. Lets see if you can dig a deeper hole to climb into..
If possible, I would suggest we leave the poor guy alone now. He is obviously not "all there" and I prefer not to be the one who pushes him over the edge. Also I think we have better things to do (like getting back to the subject at hand)..Lets try to direct our comments back to THAT subject. Steve
We? You continue piling on adjectives in a one on one conversation and point to others as if you are speaking for groups? Maybe the delusional and paranoid are from the originator... You continue talking and ignore substance.
The word "we" is not an adjective...well, maybe on your planet. Here on earth the word "we" is a first person plural pronoun. Obviously English isn't spoken where you come from, so let me translate. We, meaning several of us (people of normal intelligence) have had enough of your banal, silly, comments. "WE" are tired of talking to you now and will from this point on put YOU on ignore. I hope that you understand what "we" are saying...
Gad, you can't be that thick. Lets spell it out for you. Its in your third grade reader. 1) You used ADJECTIVES - "delusional, paranoid", etc. Based on your continuing lack of awareness, they do seem to fit you well. 2) You used "WE" - Apparently in reference to your numerous clueless posts, and grouped together as if you are speaking for a large audience And using "we of normal intelligence" now you must be using imaginary numbers, because you are no longer in WE... THANKS FOR THE IGNORE. Although I am not sure you know how to use it. I will appreciate the silence, but I suspect you will have to have the last clueless word...
Murray, From your years of experience as a system developer, do you believe that systems that work well on a portfolio of markets have a tendency to have a larger "shelf life" than those built around a single market? I believe that they do, but I don't have the years of experience that you have to confirm my beliefs. Certainly, a system that works well on multiple markets gives confidence that a system will perform well in the future. Any comments? Thanks, Ryan