Guten Tag, Eddie Blinker!
I'm answering here because - if you read my last message, which it is apparent you haven't - you'll note that I told the individual running the thread to ban me, which he did.
Even if you did read my message, it has become apparent that it might take you some time to do so, feeding it sentence by sentence through whatever program you use - or, worse yet, flipping frantically through the pages of some "Berlitz: Ja, Deutsch!" book, LOL.
It's noteworthy that, on this thread, you would suggest that "the SI community regards me as a moron and madman," because your messages certainly imply the former. I think that, to start, you need a better German-English translator.
First, pertaining to your "If you dare" statement. I'm not sure if you think you are intimidating, knowledgable, or both, but in either case: you're bringing a toothpick to a fencing match. I am more than happy to match wits with you anyday of the SI week on any topic that you choose to disagree with me on.
You see, Eddie Blinker, even if you made a point once in awhile, your messages would still be too hilarious to be effective. A few of the gems from your post to me:
"...deliver your produce again."
Produce? Are you serious? Lettuce, tomatoes, celery...? Even if you meant product, that doesn't even loosely translate to the word "message."
"...to teach us how to wheel and deal."
LOL. Wheel[ing] and deal[ing], who said anything about that? I refuted the assertion - and still do - that manipulation "permeates" the market at "all levels" Jeez, Eddie, I don't even know what you might have meant here.
"a [sic] insignificant appetizer"
Perhaps you think so, but I do not think that the article you mentioned is "insignificant." Rather, as I posted: sometimes, firms and individuals violate the rules. If the rules are, at the determination of the regulators, flagrant enough, the firms or individuals should be fined, suspended, censured, and/or banned. It happens, sometimes.
So, Eddie, you state that the article represents an "insignificant appetizer," while a paragraph or two later - even having pointed out the NASDR website (which I'm familiar with, thank you), you assert that my description of the frequency of violations as "sometimes" grossly understates some widespread conspiracy.
First of all, get your delusion straight. If you are indeed a message board conspiracy theorist, you would not point to an NASD website as they - under that convoluted train of thought - would be viewed as the orchestrator of such actions, right? So, that would take credibility away from anything indicated on that site, would it not?
Second, if you do believe that those records accurately reflect the state of regulatory violations to date - which you apparently do, recommending it and paying such attention to it that you note that it "chills your spine" - you would have to admit that of the roughly 5,000 broker-dealers in the U.S. executing billions of trades accounting for many trillions of dollars of capitalization every year, the amount of violations there - both numerically and proportionally - may indeed be overserved by the word "sometimes."
That is my version of thinking like a criminal.
Well, nonetheless. You may "think like a criminal," Eddie, but that's your business. I'd more accurately characterize your message(s) as criminally stupid than merely "criminal," with or without the benefit of bad logic and awkward phrases.
I don't like you LPS5.
Ouch. Really? Well, Eddie, I'll probably still sleep pretty well tonight anyway, LOL. But, I think Peter V was right about the amusement value of a dialogue with Eddie Blinker.
Please - even despite the fact that you don't like me: respond. I want to see what other feats of mental inability or choice phrases you can create. It is my hope that somewhere buried in an upcoming Eddie message there'll be a "[d]on't have a cow (dude: optional)," a "where's the beef," or perhaps a description of regulatory measures as "bogus," "rad," or "fresh."
Take good care of yourself, Eddie. Hope to hear from you soon. :)
LPS5 |
