|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Good post, Tom. Good to hear from a bona fide trading celebrity. Your
first paragraph (not to be too negative about it :) has a tendency to wax a
bit prolix, though. Maybe you should compare the submitted versions of
your articles to the published versions for some style tips. On the
positive side, we should all listen to your momma. :) -uf
At 10:26 AM 6/21/99 -0700, you wrote:
>despite the distorted and incorrect beliefs professed by the few and
>ubiquitous dubious detractors who vocalize on this network incessantly,
>i personally can clarify a baseless misperception they promulgate
>regarding stocks and commodites magazine from first hand experience.
>undoubtedly, this communication will ignite a volley of nasty editorials
>from a few of the psychological misfits and miscreants who complain and
>distrust anything they read or hear but so be it.(NOTE: this is not
>intended to discredit mark brown whom i sincerely believe often has
>meaningful good intentions as his goal)
>
>i have submitted an article or two to "stocks and commodities" and they
>have accepted it(them) for publication. no solicitation for advetising
>by mssrs. sweeney, hartl, or hutson has ever occurred--no quid pro quo.
>in fact they were gracious enough to make suggestions and contributions
>of their own to enhance the work. they were professional in every
>respect.
>
>my momma told me years ago to be skeptical of those who were critical of
>others and made claims of unethical and suspicious conduct and motives
>because they more than likely have such predilections themnselves and
>are merely displacing their own feelings and personalities upon others.
>it is the unsuspecting and positive person who is least likely to
>posssess these negative character flaws and i can tell you from my
>expereince many of those who criticize others on this forum without
>first hand knowledge should be held most suspect.the staff of stocks and
>commodities, just like those of CSI, are more focused on productive
>gaols to even bother with such pettiness.
>
>best regards, tom demark
|