|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Subject:
you dont know jack >was Re: get your facts straight-adieu
Date:
Sun, 6 Dec 1998 22:40:53 -0600
From:
"Mark Brown" <markbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
"Tom DeMark" <tomdemark@xxxxxxxx>, "Robert W Cummings"
<rwc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
mark brown----tom, i never said i worked for tudor! i said that if you
worked for tudor
like you claimed you would have surely asked me if i was the same mark
brown
that worked for tutor. i am consultant for the largest (if not then the
second largest) hedge fund in the state of Texas which has managed money
for
tudor, other market wizards and hundreds of other extremely wealth
individuals who's net worth is well over 100 million dollars each.
prior to
that i was a paid trader for the same firm and elected to go out on my
own,
i am still a consultant for the firm that i left and am constantly
requested
to help them. i developed and traded systems for this firm until only
recently and they still use models that i developed for which i am
compensated. before this i was head of research and system development
for
a broker who was certainly the largest commissioned broker in the world
for
smith barney when he left to start his own broker dealer a year ago (if
you
want to know now who i worked for just check that out). he is the same
manager that is a principle of the hedge fund i refereed to earlier and
certainly puts ALL so called market wizards to shame with a phenomenal
track
record among the best in this industry. for years i have been a
contract
consultant for various BIG traders mopping up behind guys like you.
there
is not a single place i have gone that didn't laugh at the mention of
your
name!
response--stuttering and stammering doesn't make for a response. why are
you so evasive about your past and present?? face it no one at tudor has
ever heard of a mark brown or generic facsimile. you know my bio--it's
official and real and those are real people in the industry. give the
names of the people you worked for, with, under or maybe slightly knew
or your relative knew--it certainly wouldn't or couldn't be a
friend--you're incapable of having any. why are you so vague about your
credentials?? be specific, if they are for real. mine are not bogus and
the other people you attack, like larry, are bona fide as well.
mark brown----the revenge of the cold stiff Mungo or Binky, this shows
that you are not
being truthful tom because this reference to the mono affair would
suggest
you have been on the list longer than you have claimed.
response----who's not truthful? i got introduced to this site and the
first day i observed your brazen and inane attacks upon some poor soul
who had lost a loved one(a dog, maybe, i can't recall). you and chesler
and cummings got about enough compassion as sadam. unfortunately, my
e-mail error occurred that same week. fortunately, i was able to
experience the vile of someone like you first hand--it's an experience i
will not want to repeat again and will avoid at all costs. what a
wretched life you must live--it's got to be unbearable and if the
supposed fund managers you claim you worked for were aware of the way
you conduct yourself you wouldn't last long. most of them are succesful
because there good and because they possess something you don't, aheart.
i've been reading your rantins longer than i wish i had(3 weeks, maybe
4) now, how was that a lie?
mark brown----i would urge you to do the same tom, get your facts
strait! while your at
it ask larry williams how come he doesn't register with the nfa and make
those claims? i would like to see you testify on his behalf before
the
cftc and state the same claims that you made earlier! a unregistered
person can claim anything and get away with it and you and the omega
world
bunch days are numbered.
response---i can only tell the group my experiences with Larry over the
past 25 years +. you're not in his league-not even close. ask those who
know larry, he's honorable, loyal, trustworthy, credible, giving, and
everything else you are not and could never aspire to be. go ahead and
read whatever you can negative about him or anyone else because i'm sure
whoever bred you unfortunately created other heartless souls as well.
from my experience with your ilk, you thrive on the negative. as
intelligent as profess to be can't you formulate your own conclusions?
you didn't give me a chance and you sure as heck didn't larry. you're a
sorry lot.
mark brown---ps tom i pulled out some old post from the archives and
thought you would
want to see how your name has come up in past conversations when someone
was
considering your work's value.
post---Amen to that. I wonder how much Omega paid Larry and Tom for
their expert
prerecorded chart analysis?
response---once again mark know-it-all, they paid us ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
post---I spent 4 months on this and my conclusion is that the concept of
Sequential is valid but one is infinitly better off approaching this
idea
from the candlestick standpoint in Nison's BEYOND CANDLESTICKS.
rsponse---value was derived per your source.
post--DeMark has an article in the June issue of Futures, which promises
great things for users of his Sequential system, when it is applied
in short timeframes. However, the description of the system in this
article could best be described as "imprecise". There is another
description in Schwager's book on Futures technical analysis - this
differs a bit from the one in the June Futures magazine (in
Schwager's defense, he DOES advise readers to get DeMark's $50 book,
and use that as the reference).
post---I have programmed the Sequential rules into EasyLanguage, as best
asI can understand them. I'm sure I am not implementting something
exactly as DeMark had conceived of it. The results are interesting, but
not as spectacular as implied in the June Futures article.
response-- once again i have no control how someone might write an
article regarding my studies--schwager, futures, etc but the fact that
the author spends the time to do it is a testimonial to some perceived
value despite what you claim. these authors paid me NOTHING as well. by
the way, have you ever written an article that was published
anywhere?--how about chesler and cummings??
post---Sequential has me intrigued, but then, there are so many systems
out there that promise great things, and deliver .... well, something
less.
response--just the fact someone is intrigued with a concept is an
incentive to experiment with variations. i certainly would never ant to
experiment with your twisted venomous presentation of the language.
i hope this is the last of your attacks on me and everyone else. next
time you feel compelled to rant and rave look into the mirror and vent
yourself that way, it will save you much embarrassment and time
composing empty e-mails.
|