|
I agree with you in this specific instance, but
there are two assumptions that always seem to be present on these forums that I
find rather silly:
- That anyone with a product or service is a
charlatan
- That everyone else is both a perfect student and
possesses the requisite skills/resources to be a trader
We all know there's a degree of
truth in the first one, but there is close to none in the second
one.
You can't legislate morality or stupidity and
every time that's been tried it has failed miserably. Nor can you be
hostile towards or place unrealistic restrictions on businesses - California
tried this and ended up being the #1 exporter of jobs in the country. So
maybe a little common sense is in order both in terms of how RT handles
businesses and how members evaluate their services.
This morning Ira mentioned he teaches....good for
him and I can't see how this could be viewed as offensive. Clyde
includes a URL in his signature.....ditto. Previously Ron Janesch crudely and blatantly spammed the list and was
banned......good for him and RT, and bravo to the moderator. I view morge
and his post as spam while others don't, but either way I don't see where
there was any harm done.
If someone has a quality product or
service for sale then you'd expect a free trial if possible. If they
teach then you'd expect them to be willing and able to demonstrate their skills
in real-time. Anyone can post hindsight charts, and anyone with basic
desktop publishing skills can present bogus documents, but there is nowhere to
hide in real-time. You could add to this list, but some of the other
restrictions mentioned previously get into the legislating morality/stupidity
arena and would simply fail. In the end someone has to run their business
as they see fit, and the consumer has to do their due diligence before investing
in their product or service. It is not RT's role to place silly
restrictions on businesses or try and protect consumers from
themselves.
In any event, I hope RT finds a happy medium
because I would like to see this forum become more active. The level
of talent and experience on this list is head and shoulders above any
other.
Bob
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 11:20
PM
Subject: Re: [RT] Re: Tim Morge's course
study
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
|