SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Brokerage-Chat Site Securities Fraud: A Lawsuit
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: CountofMoneyCristo who wrote (2163)7/24/2003 3:29:03 PM
From: Dave O.  Read Replies (3) of 3143
 
< They taught scalping multiple trades for peanuts because it generated huge commissions. But they knew very well that this strategy was completely unsuitable for anyone, full-time trader or otherwise. >

Do you actually believe what you post? Lots of firms "taught" scalping. All-Tech, where I traded in the late 90's, taught it. So what? One doesn't have to trade via scalping. No one forced me to trade that way at All-Tech. Rather, one should trade the way that achieves profitability. And I disagree ... it's not completely unsuitable to scalp. There are people who make a living scalping.

< You all still are not paying any attention. If you pay someone for advice then you're going to follow it. That's logical, isn't it? >

Actually I am paying attention. Once again you make yourself look foolish with the above statement. Yeah, maybe I'd follow the advice when I initially subscribed. But if I started losing money I'd quit the service. Now THAT would be LOGICAL which flies in the face of you apparently continuing to follow the advice and losing more and more money. THAT (following advice that is not profitable) is totally ILLOGICAL in my opinion.

< Or do you think it makes sense to argue that all of these thousands simply paid into the investment advisory coffers out of charitable instinct? >

Maybe you need to see how many subscribers terminated their subscriptions if/when they realized it perhaps was not making them the profits they anticipated.

< Let's see here: you defraud thousands of people, they're then wiped out because of what you did, and then to top all you actually argue they did it to themselves. >

First, you've not proven ANYONE defrauded anyone as far as I know. Second, you've not named "thousands of people" (I asked you to account for such earlier and you chose not to). Third, you've not shown me ANYONE who was "wiped out". What constitutes being "wiped out"? Losing 100% of their trading account? What if the account was $2000? Is that "wiped out" if they lost it all? Bottom line is that you've proven NOTHING here on SI. Rather, all you've done is make statements that have NOT been proven in a court of law. And last .... YES, trading is risky and many people lose money. Most take responsibility for their actions. You seem to be the exception.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News