|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
<x-html><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Theo:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>This program correlates with my version
of WIFE 1.0. I would like to add another useful program instruction
that is apparently undocumented in your version. When correcting any
general partnership faults (GPF) use the command "\Yes Dear".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Lionel Issen<BR><A
href="mailto:lissen@xxxxxxxxx";>lissen@xxxxxxxxx</A></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A href="mailto:sky40912@xxxxxxxxx"; title=sky40912@xxxxxxxxx>Theo E.M.
Lockefeer</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
href="mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"; title=metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>Metastock
User Group</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, March 04, 2000 8:44
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Off Topic Problems
............</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#008080 size=3><STRONG><EM>All :</EM></STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#008080 size=3><STRONG><EM>1) Please study carefully
!!</EM></STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#008080 size=3><STRONG><EM>2) Any experience with this
below encountered ? </EM></STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#008080 size=3><STRONG><EM>3) some people are
said to have more problems with Wife 2.0</EM></STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#008080 size=3><STRONG><EM>and later
versions.............</EM></STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#008080 size=3><STRONG><EM>4) Is Metastock
Wife-compatible ?</EM></STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#008080 size=3><STRONG><EM>Theo.</EM></STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>> Dear Tech Support:<BR>> <BR>> Last
year I upgraded from Girlfriend 7.0 to Wife 1.0 and noticed that the new
<BR>> program began unexpected child processing that took up a lot of space
and <BR>> valuable resources. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>No mention of this phenomenon was included in the
product <BR>> brochure. In addition, Wife 1.0 installs itself into all
other programs and <BR>> launches during system initialization, where it
monitors all other system <BR>> activity.<BR>> <BR>> Applications
such as Poker night 10.3, drunken Boys Night 2.5 and Saturday <BR>>
Football 5.0 no longer run, crashing the system whenever selected. I cannot
<BR>> seem to keep Wife 1.0 in the background while attempting to run some
of my <BR>> other favorite applications. I am thinking about going back to
Girlfriend <BR>> 7.0, but uninstall does not work on this program. Can you
help me, Please!!!<BR>> <BR>> Thanks, Theo<BR>> <BR>> Dear
Theo<BR>> <BR>> This is a very common problem men complain about but in
mostly due to a <BR>> primary misconception. Many people upgrade from
Girlfriend 7.0 to Wife 1.0 <BR>> with the idea that Wife 1.0 is merely a
"Utilities & Entertainment" program. <BR>> Wife 1.0 is an Operating
System and designed by its creator to run <BR>> everything. It is unlikely
you would be able to purge Wife 1.0 and still <BR>> convert back to
Girlfriend 7.0 Hidden operating files within your system <BR>> would cause
Girlfriend 7.0 to emulate Wife 1.0 so nothing is gained.<BR>> <BR>> It
is impossible to uninstall, delete, up purge the program files from the
<BR>> system once installed. You cannot go back to Girlfriend 7.0 because
Wife 1.0 <BR>> is not designed to do this. Some have tried to install
Girlfriend 8.0 or Wife <BR>> 2.0 but end up with more problems than the
original system. Look in your <BR>> manual under "Warnings-Alimony/Child
Support". I recommend you keep Wife 1.0 <BR>> and just deal with the
situation. Having installed Wife 1.0 myself, I might <BR>> also suggest you
read the entire section regarding "General Partnership <BR>> Faults" (GPF).
You must assume all responsibility for faults and problems <BR>> that might
occur, regardless of their cause.<BR>> <BR>> The best course of action
will be to enter the command c:\APOLOGIZE. In any <BR>> case avoid
excessive use of the "Esc" key because ultimately you will have to <BR>>
give the APOLOGIZE command before the operating system will return to normal.
<BR>> The system will run smoothly as long as you take the blame for all
the (GPF)s<BR>> <BR>> Wife 1.0 is a great program, but very high
maintenance. Consider buying <BR>> additional software to improve the
performance of Wife 1.0. I recommend <BR>> Flowers 2.0 and Chocolates 6.0.
Do not under any circumstances, install <BR>> Secretary With Short Skirt
3.3. This is not a supported application for Wife <BR>> 1.0 and is likely
to cause irreversible damage to the operating system.<BR>> <BR>> Best of
luck, Tech Support<BR>>
<BR></FONT></DIV></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
</x-html>From ???@??? Tue Mar 07 15:13:16 2000
Return-Path: <majordom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Received: from listserv.equis.com (listserv.equis.com [204.246.137.2])
by purebytes.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA32476
for <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 15:09:01 -0800
Received: (from majordom@xxxxxxxxx)
by listserv.equis.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA06977
for metastock-outgoing; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 06:51:09 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: listserv.equis.com: majordom set sender to owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx using -f
Received: from freeze.metastock.com (freeze.metastock.com [204.246.137.5])
by listserv.equis.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA06972
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 06:51:06 -0700
Received: from mail.rdc1.md.home.com (imail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [24.2.2.66])
by freeze.metastock.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA00618
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 15:22:28 -0700 (MST)
Received: from cj52561a ([24.13.243.16]) by mail.rdc1.md.home.com
(InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP
id <20000307220644.XOJE20034.mail.rdc1.md.home.com@xxxxxxxx>
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 14:06:44 -0800
Message-ID: <005101bf889a$fffee820$10f30d18@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Jim Greening" <jimginva@xxxxxxxx>
To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <NBBBKFMIMHJOLMGOIJGNOEPGEDAA.grt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: latest family e-mail
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 17:02:34 -0800
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
Sender: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Status:
Guy,
It sure looks like you made a great call this time. As you said, it's
easy to understand how you're making money on this go around, but I'm amazed
that I'm still doing great on the long side with ARBA, CMRC, and QLGC and
not bad with BBH, JDSU, and SDL. However, I am running scared and
tightening my stops every night <G>.
JimG
----- Original Message -----
From: "Guy Tann" <grt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Metastock" <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 8:09 PM
Subject: latest family e-mail
> List,
>
> Here's our latest market e-mail to the family with a spreadsheet showing
all
> trades since we started sending this message out (October 11, 1999) to
> family and a few associates of my brother (involved in his startup or
other
> business deals). What's interesting is that we can short the S&P futures,
> the DIA, SPY and the QQQ and make money on all of these positions, while
> traders working with particular stocks can still make money while trading
> opposite our position. Right, JimG?
>
> Even though our initial margin is $4,688 per contract (for one S&P mini
> contract), we maintain a balance of $14,064 per contract. We do this to
> limit our Risk of Ruin to 0% as opposed to the 100% we used to run (and
> proved right too many times). In order to calculate our "real" return,
you
> would have to assume an investment of $14,064 instead of $4,688. This
would
> give you a net return of 119% since October 11, 1999 (approximately 5
> months). Again, this calculates out to be a 285.6% annual return on
> investment, which isn't too shabby considering you have 2/3 of your money
> tied up in TBills. You should also add in any interest income on the
> approximately $10,000 in excess margin in your account. I have decided to
> drop this from our calculations and consider it just gravy.
>
> Depending upon your own personal aversion to risk, you could substantially
> increase your annual return by reducing the balance you maintain per
> contract. We have chosen to err on the side of caution and to maintain a
0%
> Risk of Ruin for our personal trading.
>
> Guy
>
>
>
|