|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Dear Norman and all else interested,
I do find it curious to witness the hostility of the derogatory statements
made by certain individuals regarding Baumring, particularly coming from
those who never even knew him, nor ever had the opportunity to study or
exchange ideas with him. All of these comments are based upon what sounds
like a rather short telephone call the true dialog of which can never be
recovered or know by any of us so many years after the fact. It is obvious
that you had a problem with Donald Mack for whatever reason, all of which is
something I know nothing about and is none of my concern, but it wouldn't
surprise me if your conversation with Baumring contained the same elements
of hostility which you seem to express in this response. If this were the
case it wouldn't surprise me that Baumring did not desire to communicate
with you, since he was well known to refuse to communicate with individuals
who came from a place of hostility or egotism, as evidenced by Cowan's
expulsion from the seminars due to a "personality conflict". If this one
conversation and some rumors, is all you base you entire evaluation on, it
seems to me to be weak grounds for such strong opinions, and I am left
wondering why you have such an axe to grind?
Regarding astrology, I do have Brahy's book, since it was in Baumring's
collection, along with all of the other titles you mention, if this means
anything. I can also confirm that Baumring spent considerable time covering
topics in astrology with varied students depending on their orientation. I
have many pages of notes discussing these topics, and there are many such
elements in Julius' Notes which those who have read them can verify. I have
no particular interest in "proving" any of this to you, as it is of no
concern to me whether you believe it or not, and it seems evident that you
have already made up your mind regarding your opinion of Baumring, whatever
material you see, which it seems, so far, has been little or nothing. Apart
from this, however, you seem, like Cowan, to be concerned with a narrow
frame of reference. Astrology is only one of dozens of approaches to market
forecasting, and Baumring's primary approach was not astrological, it was
based upon the "Law of Vibration" and the work of W. D. Gann, of which there
is very little existent astrological material. Since Baumring's intent was
to present "a distillation of the wisdom and insights of W. D. Gann", he
concentrated on other technical approaches primarily, but still discussed
the astrological element with those who were interested. To even evaluate
Baumring solely from the perspective of astrology when he never promised to
teach that to anyone, seems inappropriate. How is your understanding
multidimensional market geometry, DNA structures in the markets, or harmonic
composition, growth factors and vortex systems. There are reams more to
Baumring's teaching than just astrology, it is merely one facet of a
multifaceted gem.
As to "My Story" by The Seeker, and his loss of $40,000, the entire
experience written of in that book took place before Baumring had even begun
to study the markets, so I think you have mixed up your facts and
individuals. I have heard many absurd stories about Baumring, but this one
takes first prize, you are very imaginative. All I can do for the
prudent-minded individuals out there is remind them of the old adage,
"Believe nothing you hear, and only 1/2 of what you see." I can only
speculate on the antagonistic attitudes possessed by certain individuals
particularly regarding those they neither knew nor whose work they have ever
seen. I don't know what about Baumring causes you to feel so threatened and
offensive, but that is your concern, not mine. Anyone who is interested in
studying Baumring's teaching for themselves has that opportunity open to
them, as they have the opportunity open to study your material. I do not
know of your work and have not seen your material, so I am not qualified to
recommend it. I have studied Baumring's material and have received a better
education as a result than I had ever conceived of pursuing, as have many
of the other Baumring students, so I recommend it as a fascinating and
valuable study for those interested. However, I in no way encourage anyone
to stop there, as there are many important works on the market, and in their
studies with Baumring every student was required to examine all of the best
material available on the subject.
Finally regarding this concept of the "deification" of Baumring often
purported by his antagonists, is it "deification" to honor and respect one's
teachers and the sources of one's education? In both Eastern and Western
Esoteric and Scientific Tradition it is considered mandatory to honor one's
teachers. Was it Newton who said that he accomplished his insights only by,
"standing upon the shoulders of giants." Baumring was a hard-liner when it
came to respect for sources, and was responsible for bringing out of
obscurity the work of many great thinkers and teachers, to which he gave
full credit and respect on all counts. If not for Baumring's publication of
many rare books on the markets, sciences and metaphysics, many important
works would have been long lost to humanity, and I am honored to have the
opportunity to continue to keep many of these important teachings available
for those seeking greater wisdom. There are many teachers and thinkers from
the past whom I honor more than Baumring, so if my respect for Baumring's
teachings falls into the category of "deification", I suppose I must be a
very holy man.
Best regards,
Brad Stewart
-----Original Message-----
From: nwinski [mailto:nwinski@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 8:27 PM
To: institute@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; realtraders
Subject: Re: [RT] RE: Cowan-Stewart Continued...
NW:
Dear Brad & RT,
Please find below correspondence I received, January 5, from Brad
Stewart,
AKA "Sacred Science Institute" and my (NW) reply. (The Saga Continues) <G>
B.S. = Brad Street
N.W. = Norman Winski
> BS: Dear Norman,
>
> The lack of response you received from Baumring had nothing to do with any
> lack of knowledge of astrology.
NW: Can you prove that? You have his library. How many Astrological
treatise or
papers did he write? You were his student. Could he and did he ever
interpret an
Astrological chart? Or are you jumping to conclusions on the fact that he
had
this massive book collection which he probably acquired
nefariously. (Any of the books stamped "property of Donald Mack"?) Just
because
he had a large book collection doesn't mean he understands all the material
in
all of those books. I have a 3,000 volume library and I have probably only
thoroughly read about 10% of it. No 1800 words per minute for me. I guess I
am
an Evelyn Woods speed reading flunky. <G> Even if I have read 300 books, I
may
totally
understand 20% of that and of the 20% I probably disagree with half of it.
That
is the difference between just reading, regurgitating, and being able to
really
think analytically..
> BS: Anyone who has know or studied with
> Baumring or has even so much as looked at his recommended reading lists or
> even the sample Lecture Notes posted on the Sacred Science website will
see
> that astrology was one of the most fundamental studies conducted by every
> Baumring student. There are dozens of astrology books on his reading
list,
> and Baumring had over 400 astrology books in his personal collection and
> just about everything on financial astrology ever written.
NW: You have Stock Market Fluctuations & Cosmic Influences by Gustave
Lambert
Brahy, in English? I'm the publisher. It was the basis for David Williams'
"Astro Economics" and probably also influenced Donald Bradley. G.L. Brahy
pioneered the concept of assigning numerical values to planetary aspects.
You
familiar with these books?
NW: So, if you were his student, and obviously his most devoted disciples,
how
much Astrology did you learn from Baumring? Did he teach you how to
interpret a
chart or how to interpret planetary positions?
> BS: Just because he didn't respond to a pop quiz asked by some random
caller,
> is no comment on
> his level of knowledge of a complex subject. I wonder how many people out
> there if called on the phone by someone they didn't know and asked basic
> astrology questions, would bother to answer those questions.
NW: I an not just "anyone" or "some random caller". You may have gotten the
wrong impression due to my attempt,. believe it or not, to keep the story
brief.
In fact, Don Mack thought highly of me professionally, but his ego was
bruised
because I had told him that his partner, Kent Stefgan, was a crook and to
be
careful. Don Mack didn't talk to me for several years because he was
embarrassed
that I had been right about Stefgan.. So, now he has a new partner who he
wants
to use to impress me. That is why he had Baumring get on the telephone. I
certainly did not call them, as the last I had heard through a friend, Don
Mack
was mad at me. Out of the blue, THEY CALLED ME TO TRY TO IMPRESS ME.
Understand?
So, if one wants to impress someone, one certainly doesn't avoid answering
their
questions on the topic to which they boast their expertise. My recollection
is
that Baumring agreed to take a little test on his Gann expertise, but then
he
couldn't answer any of the Astrological questions that I asked. Oops! Wrong
answer! Did I hear a buzzer? <G>
BS: Baumring was often called by various people who attempted to "pick his
brain", as he put it, and generally he said very little to anyone outside
his
personal circle of students and colleagues.
NW: I know some of his former students. One guy wrote a book telling how
Baumring had taken
him for $40,000. Perhaps you are familiar with the book written by
"Everyman"
about his path to find the "Holly Grail" in the markets. I know another guy
who
is a well respected market technician who got hooked for $25,000. Both felt
they had been taken, i.e. did not get their money's worth by any stretch of
the
imagination.
> BS: I think most professionals follow a similar
> example in any field, it is called prudence. Silence is certainly no
> comment on a person's level of knowledge, though it is a clear comment
upon
> his lack of interest in communicating that knowledge to another.
NW: If he didn't want to communicate, why did they call me and brag that
Baumring was the "world's greatest Gann expert"? I think you are deluding
yourself. Ok, the guy had a good library. But, there is no reason to deify
the
guy. Albert Einstein is TIme Magazine's "Man of the Century". But, I know
of no
movement where people blindly worship Albert. Hey, I have one of he largest
Astrological library in the US. What about me? Maybe I can get a big
following? You wanna to be a "Winski" expert? <G>
NW: By the way, Albert Einstein was undoubtedly a genius. He took a complex
problem, how the Universe is put together, and solved it using a profound
yet
simple concept, Relativity. Baumring took something complex, the markets,
and
made them more complex. That is the difference between a very smart person
like
Baumring (book smart but obviously lacking in wisdom or he wouldn't have
being
doing cocaine) and a genius like Einstein.
> BS: I would hope that people engage a more thorough due diligence than
this
> in forming
> an opinion about anything, otherwise they are like to develop many
> misconceptions.
NW: Yes, I agree. I know what you mean. <G>
>
>
> BS: Regarding Donald Mack's extended stay and returning to find
circumstances
> changed, that is a considerably different story than presented, and really
> Donald's own personal business. Suffice to say that the extended trip
> lasted almost 10 years, and his first return was about 7 years after
> Baumring's death.
NW: Why would he return if there was nothing to return to? Let's say you
trust
someone with your life's work and business. While you are gone they
squandered
it or stole it all What would you do?
>
> BS: It is always better not to jump to conclusions based upon limited
> information.
NW: You got that one right.
> NW: Brad, why don't you study with me and then you will find out how much
> Baumring didn't teach you. And, I'm a lot less expensive.
>
> BS: Sincerely,
>
> Brad Stewart
NW: Best Wishes,
Norman
>
|