Delusions, desperation and tortured souls

[options]

LOL! you prove my point and miss my point all in one go. Well done!

 

[options]

And GS don't pay nearly enough!

 

[grantx]

Options,

“socs has been singlehandedly responsible in raising the standard of English”

If only Soc’s written skills matched his options trading. Perhaps you could refer to one post as an illustration.

“use the dictionary” especially for words like ….imparticular, singlehandedly, succesfull, amour, gramatical

“can so very easily be taken out of all context and intended meaning”. Too many redundant words, here.
“can be taken out of context” is sufficient.

“out of context” and “intended meaning” are equivalent. In the same sentence this appears to be hyperbole but this would be incorrect; it’s actually repetition.

This is truly, truly ironic.

That’s enough pettiness and pedantry for one day.

Grant (D.LL)

 

[options]

Lol

“socs has been singlehandedly responsible in raising the standard of English”

If only Soc’s written skills matched his options trading. Perhaps you could refer to one post as an illustration.


No. Because we are talking about two very different things. And in the first instance Socs himself has something to aspire to.

“use the dictionary” especially for words like ….imparticular, singlehandedly, succesfull, amour, gramatical



I thought afterwards that joke may have missed the mark.

“can so very easily be taken out of all context and intended meaning”. Too many redundant words, here.
“can be taken out of context” is sufficient.

“out of context” and “intended meaning” are equivalent. In the same sentence this appears to be hyperbole but this would be incorrect; it’s actually repetition.



No. It is there for added clarity. Out of context and intended meaning are two succinctly different meanings


This is truly, truly ironic.

That's life.

That’s enough pettiness and pedantry for one day.

No. I am sure you have more.

 

[PKFFW]

"no proof for it." ...I deal in probabilities on virtually everything combined with a Popper like view of how to prove something by disproving it...at the moment despite all attempts no one has yet disproved my stated view so I'm pretty happy to rely on it until they do. If you come up with something to the contrary though please put me on the update list so i get in some well timed grovelling to the greater diety ,or whatever.

Firstly, interesting thread.

Secondly my apologies for veering off topic briefly.

Chump,
Just a couple of interesting things to consider strictly from a logical thinking point of view. I'm not trying to convince you of the existence of a Supreme Being.
1: If you deal in probabilites then the existence of a Supreme Being could be a 1. Being that in a universe of infinite possibilites then the existence of a Supreme Being would be a certainty or a probability of 1. Of course if you defined the universe as one of finite possibilites that would be a different matter.
2: If you take a view of "how to prove something by disproving it" then a belief in a Supreme Being is the only strictly logical stance to take. It is a logical impossibilty to prove a negative. For example to prove that a being does not exist. So, someone could possibly, some time in the future, maybe and strictly hypothetically speaking, prove the existence of a Supreme being and hence "disprove" your point of view. However, as it is impossible for anyone to prove that a Supreme Being does not exist, if you believed in a Supreme Being no one could possibly ever disprove your point of view.

Then again, maybe it is only intersting to me because I am doing night shift and it is 0147hrs on a Monday morning and I am deluded!

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[strokey tone]

Trading can become gambling or chucking good money after bad if you get involved with the wrong broker as I did-
"Churning the shares" something that the media who want to sell advertising assist the brokers and Market Makers with in order to create a bit of panic amongst private investors so that they trade and then the brokers get their commission.
If these experts know so much then they would be trading themselves on their own advice instead of trying to make sales out of private investors!
Worse thing I ever did was to get persuaded after 3 months of daily phone calls by a chatty chap from Logic Investments of London to open a CFD or Contract For Difference trading account which runs on a 10% leverage principle, most trades in the city are run like this now because No Tax or Stamp Duty is paid to the government, If you have a £100 to invest this turns into a £1000 with a CFD leverage so increasing greatly your possible profit, but also increasing by even more your possible loss because you have the brokers £50 open and £50 close position plus commission to pay each trade and if you keep the position open overnight the interest meter starts clicking so you are paying interest on the loan by the minute 24/7 on shares that are in loss times 10!
So in 12 months I lost more than in 12 years of trading myself by taking the advice of Logic Investments who wanted me to trade as many times as possible each day and every trade they got paid whether it went right or wrong, it is a complete but legal way of scamming private investors.
So I now do my own trading and have turned things around by using the principles taught to me years ago by a respectable old broker with principles and integrity towards his clients, sadly qualities that have no place in the city trading world of today as I found out, but it was a lesson well learnt albeit an expensive one and I now try to stop other people falling into the same trap that I did which is very satisfying!