|
I read Timothy Morge's post an my immediate
reaction was another hustler.
I feel like I have seen so much of that kind of
talk. I don't see anything wrong
or lacking in RT as it is.
Ron
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 11:19
PM
Subject: [RT] Re: Tim Morge's course
study
--- In realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
"Joe Duffy" <keypoint@x...>
wrote:
> The Morge post is exactly why the whole idea of banning is
retarded. Why
> would anyone object to this type of info from Morge?
Really why???
>
> Where the hell would any of us be without
Welles Wilder. Larry
Williams, Sam
> Tennis, Murray Rugerio, etc etc
etc. Everyone here got knowledge
from those
> that went before them.
Just because now you think you have enough
knowledge
> is no reason
to deprive those coming after you.
>
> It can't possibly hurt
anyone, but post like Morges may help a lot
of
> others. Again why
would anyone want to ban this type of help for
others???
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Timothy Morge"
<timothymorge@xxxx>
> To:
<realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005
7:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [RT] Re: Advertising
>
>
>
> Earl and other RT members:
> >
> > In no way did I
intend to start or contribute to this vast amount
of
> >
bandwidth discussing this non-trading issue.
> >
> > The
ONLY forum I posted the announcement to, other than my own,
was
RT,
> > because I have been a member since the very beginning and a
handful of
> > people had recently privately emailed me asking me
what the heck
happened
> > to me. In no way did I intend what I
posted to be spam or
solicitation of
> > any product or
firm.
> >
> > I am saddened that I have now been labeled a
"spammer" on this
list. That
> > being said, I understand Bob's
concern for having control of a
forum that
> > he runs, and I
know how difficult it is to "put the genie back in
the
> >
bottle," so I defer to his judgement. I thought I had done a good
job
> > "cleansing the message I posted and apparently, I was
wrong. If I
offended
> > any of you, you have my sincere
apologies.
> >
> > Because of the business involvements that
fill my days [and
generally,
> half
> > my nights] it is
very difficult to discuss trading in any sense
without
> >
touching on some concept, site or product I use in my business
activities,
> > so the filtering has become near impossible for
me--maybe it's
easy for
> > others. I'm just being blatantly
honest.
> >
> > Often, when I want to chime in, I hold off
because I can't post a
chart on
> > a specific piece of software,
etc. So rather than cross what may
be the
> > "line," I just
stand back and watch. Honestly, I think myself and
many
> >
others are in the same boat and would contribute, but do not or
cannot,
> > because we don't want to cross the line but are so
entwined with
what we
> > use that to post without showing what
we use would be pointless
and,
> > truthfully, take 250 percent
longer to post, with less content.
> >
> > But, the
important thing, one more time.: After ready Earl's
post, it
> >
strikes me that my judgement was apparently incorrect. I
apologize for
the
> > post. I hope you all go back to discussing trading under the
rules your
> > moderator sets for you.
> >
> >
Best,
> >
> > Tim Morge
> >
> >
>
>
> >
> > At 05:24 PM 9/27/2005, you wrote:
> >
>This discussion appears to have been brought about by a post
from
Tim
> > >Morge for whom I have great respect. Tim contributes a
great
deal to his
> > >own Median Line forum, however Tim does
not post to this
newgroup. I
> > >thought that the "Open
Letter to MedianLine Readers" belonged on
the
> > >MedianLine
newsgroup.
> > >
> > >I suggest that spammers continue
to be shot on sight and that a
tight
> > >reign be maintained
on advertising and self promotion ... the
last deluge
> > >of
self promotion from Ron Janesch is a good example of what is
properly
> > >banned from this newsgroup.
> >
>
> > >I think that newsgroup members should be permitted to
discuss
products
> > >and/or services in the context of
trading discussions. A "setup"
for such
> > >discussions
should result in bannishment.
> > >
> > >I would
continue to permit the kind of text signature used by
Clyde Lee
>
> >but nothing more obvious or detailed ... banner ads should not
be
> tolerated.
> > >
> > >Earl
> >
>
> > >
> > >----------
> > >YAHOO!
GROUPS LINKS
> > >
> > > *
Visit your group
> > > "<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/realtraders>realtraders"
on the
web.
> > > *
> >
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
to:
> > > *
> > >
>
<mailto:realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?
subject=Unsubscribe>realtrad
>
ers-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> >
> *
> > > * Your use
of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> > > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo!
Terms of Service.
> > >
> > >
> >
>----------
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
>
>
> >
> >
> >Has anyone taken Tim's course
study? I'd appreciate some feedback
as it looks
interesting...
Thanks,
RJS1948@xxxxxxx
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
|