|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
As thick as a <continuesly twisting words> brick..........
1. Get yourselves a pair of binoculars
2. then reread what you have written and
3. then what was actualy written in the prior mails and not what you fantisize was written there
4. then compare notes.
Finaly stop waisting bandwidth and your pathatic self pityfull whining + irrelevant crapmails.
Below I have once again spelled it all out for you the simple mind.
And is also the last mail on this subject.
Period.
Regards,
Ton Maas
ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dismiss the ".nospam" bit (including the dot) when replying.
Homepage http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas
----- Original Message -----
From: "j seed" <jseed_10@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: zaterdag 22 juli 2000 17:15
Subject: Re:FYI---DeBry EOD...Maas
> Ton,
>
> Time to set the record straight. You presume to have ALL the answers yet I
> am continually reading your erroneous assertions! You have asserted that the
> Starc Band formula that I posted was taken from a 1990 publication and that
> I should have stated that fact.
If you are mailing the STARC Bands, then they must be based on that 1990 publication.
If you're mailing anything different, than they are not based on that publication and are
therefore not the STARC Bands.
Simple comparisson calculation, aint it? Either it is or it isn't.
Since that it is NOT, then what you have posted are "some kind of formulas", whatever
they are or are based on beats me, but they are NOT EVER the STARC Bands.
> To have done so would have been wrong on my
> part since I did not in fact obtain the formulas from that publication! Once
> again your assertion is WRONG! You then accuse me of plagiarism.
Aha, so admitted here is something that was already known : "they are NOT".
Then what on earth have you been posting and why use the STARC Bands name?
Falling trough the ice is one thing, but fooling the ever being on top of things fellow
List members, is a fool's failure: <a miscalculated blunder>.
Thus what has been posted were the not SuccEED formulas, disgised as the
STARC formulas. Pure plagarism, perhaps not intended at first, but still TRUE.
> Let's talk
> about the countless number of times that you have redesigned postings for
> your own benefit.
Like noted before for chats: join the IRC(see your ISP !).
I continuesly design and redesign mails. It is the second ranked most used functionality
that my OE-mail program provides.
My mails have therefore also surely benifitted, apart from myself being the design/redisgn-master,
others receiving them.
> You have accused me of declaring that I have a "super
> bragged super BMW super tradekiller super momentum indicator". Those are
> your words, not mine. Go back and read the original post again.
>From the original post(s):
20000519: Could you tell us more about your B.M. system? BTW, I had a
good BM recently but it wasn't diamontiferous!
20000521: BTW, my BM's usually produce an extremely positive flow feeling!
20000528: As far as a BM, I have them and I think most of the other readers
of this list completely understand what my inference was.
Therefore: quit Bragging you oh Master or start posting that Bullshit Mediocre system/indicator!!
> My inference
> was to a BM which I have had and still have to this day. As a matter of fact
> I usually have them every day. Yet you are still unable to comprehend the
> inference! Wake up Ton you are not as smart as you think you are.
The BM stands for your daily fits:
BullshitMaster instead of BlasterMaster? Or the BraggingMaster?
We are still awaiting your Super Momentum, in your own words:
"the one that has ALWAYS has a possitive flow feeling".
> You have
> also referred to several posts to me as references for an explanation of
> your "Diamontiferous" system. You have not explained anything to me other
> than your system does not work.
AGAIN find the explanation in the reply-mail "Re: Diamantiferous", posted
May, 20th 2000.
System was also explained several times before that date and after that date, see the
endless list of posts and re-posts (a list recently posted to the List).
Apart from you begging, there have been also been a couple of others that have
requested for the same info and were also served and refered to the explanation
mails and updates.
> Finally, you are intent upon claiming that
> the formulas for the DeBry toolbox were stolen from this forum.
Stolen are your again <twisted> words.
Posted was:
"Will therefore not be suprised if the formulas originated from here as well."
Must be twisted to do that twist.
> I challenged
> you to post those formulas. Your response was "Nope, not to you, even if
> there is one."
AGAIN a <twist>, now in the sections. That reply to you was for you begging for me
to repost older List-mails, eg
"if it exists to post a centralized archive".
Now if that archive exists, then the reply still stands firm:
"Nope, not to you, even if there is one".
> Then you state, " I will sell you the free toybox for $
> 35.00 ". You seem confused Ton. Have you decided to sell the "toybox"?
Another <twist> , as stated was
"to you I will sell the FREE toybox for $ 35.00".
A real "bargain".
> Have you decided to become a vendor of software tools for Metastock? Does
> Metastock know of your decision? Are you licensed to do so? Or is this again
> another example of your belligerent rantings that are erroneous?
Irrelevant.
> I seriously
> think you need to reconsider your continual bashing of list members. I
> personally find it childish and intolerable. This is an open forum! You may
> not like what is stated here but that doesn't give you the right or the
> responsibility to "badmouth" anyone on this list.
I will continue bashing your twist mails.
As I will also continue to bash other trash.
> You should also remember
> that this forum is open to businesses as well as private concerns.
Irrelivant.
> It also
> happens to be owned by a business. ACCEPT IT!
Irrelivant.
>
> J.
Irrelivant.
>
>
> >From: "A.J. Maas"
> >Reply-To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Subject: Re: FYI --- DeBry EOD Toolkit
> >Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 00:43:33 +0200
> >
> >
> >
> >Regards,
> >Ton Maas
> >ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Dismiss the ".nospam" bit (including the dot) when replying.
> >Homepage http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "j seed" <jseed_10@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Sent: woensdag 19 juli 2000 12:05
> >Subject: Re: FYI --- DeBry EOD Toolkit
> >
> >
> > > Ton,
> > > America is a capatalist society.
> >
> >You don't say......
> >
> > > Things like this happen all the time.
> >
> >You don't say......
> >
> > > Not long ago I posted the Starc Bands.
> >
> > > {This is what I use but any 5 day mov. avg. will work}
> > > (Mov(Typical(),5,S))
> > >
> > > {Starc Upper:}
> > > Fml( "STARC BAND" )+ (ATR(15)*1.33)
> > >
> > > {Starc Lower:}
> > > Fml( "STARC BAND" )-(ATR(15)*1.33)
> >
> >Which thus aren't nowhere near the original Starc Bands. Should you have
> >had also written
> >in that mail that it is your simple minded interpretation of the original
> >1990 publication, and that
> >they were also NOT ever based on the original, then I considder you to be
> >fair dinkum. A mate
> >so to speak. But you continue to produce bull shit, and that towards fellow
> >Listers.
> >Not a very nice thing to do, and so simply quickly uncoverable.
> >
> >Here again you made another mess. Or I should say : you tried your
> >plagiarism, failed and
> >(naturaly honouring your name) AGAIN did NOT SucEED at something.
> >But to comfort you in your ungoing traumatic missery, have re-posted the
> >authentic, now based
> >on the original artical, in another mail to the List today.
> >
> > > Shortly after that I found them being
> > > offered as a monitoring tool on a vendors website. I could have ranted
> >about
> > > that but was happy that someone found them useful.
> >
> >One plagiarismist is one too many, two make a crowd.
> >
> > > You claim that all of the
> > > DeBry toolkit can be found in the metastock library. You must remember
> >that
> > > many on this site have not been here long enough to have an established
> > > library. I'm not aware of a centralized library or archive. If there is
> > > would you please share that with us.
> >
> >Nope, not with you, even if there is one.
> >
> > > Another way to overcome a vendor's
> > > exploitation is to offer a free toolkit with the same information.
> >
> >Being an experiencied copier, I am sure you will do nicely recreating that
> >toybox, so
> >don't let me stop you.
> >
> > > Therefore, I am challenging you to do just that. Mind you it MUST be
> > > complete, so I have included the DeBry list below. Thanks,
> > >
> > > J.
> >
> >I will sell you the free toybox for $ 35.00, and like mentioned in prev
> >mails, you miss
> >any quality to chalange me.
> >
> >Now what happened to that super bragged super BMW super tradekiller super
> >momentum indicator
> >of yours,
> >the one that has been on everyone's demands-list for the past year?
> >That's still an unfiniushed for-real-life challenge!!
> >And yet again another example of one of your in-real-life continious
> >blundering failures.
> >
> >--------------snip-------------
> >
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>
|