Realcent.org

This is interesting.

Reporting from CNBC and Quartz points to strong circumstantial evidence that one or more traders received an early leak of the Federal Reserve's surprise decision last week not to slow down its bond purchases.

Markets swung rapidly on the 2 p.m. announcement last Wednesday, with stocks, bonds, and the price of gold all skyrocketing. Somebody placed massive orders for gold futures contracts betting on exactly that outcome within a millisecond or two of 2 p.m. that day -- before the seven milliseconds had passed that would allow the transmission of the information from the Fed's "lock-up" of media organizations who get an early look at the data and the arrival of that information at Chicago's futures markets (that's the time it takes the data to travel at the speed of light. A millisecond is a thousandth of a second). CNBC's Eamon Javers, citing market analysis firm Nanex, estimates that $600 million in assets could have changed hands in that fleeting moment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... nds-early/

Another example of something smelling like rotten fish, but you can't definitively prove it's rotten fish, and therefore, officially, the rotten fish doesn't exist.

I find it interesting how so many people say they don't care about my market perspectives (will add that there are many I.M's that thank me for them but the folks simply aren't interested in the verbal assaults for yet they demand that I reply to every question that they ask. Usually so many, I inadvertently miss one but they come back hounding and pounding. Of course if it was a relevant question I kindly have answered the demands.
However, when I civilly ask questions those same characters just blow them off and continue about their agendas. I suspect that they generally don’t know the answers or are too disturbed by the truth that they simply avoid it.
Cheers!

natsb88 wrote:Since JFF is too busying self-diagnosing to answer my question, I'll pose it again to anybody else who has thoughts on the issue. Was there "truth in price" when the Hunt brothers cornered the market in 79/80? And is it not at least conceivable that, with access to enough money/credit, the same could be done in reverse? I'm not saying it is going on, I'm asking hypothetically if it would be possible. And if not, what is different about the system today that would prevent it?

No need for the negative prologue to your question is there? Can simply ask the question. However, I don't see your question on this thread. So, I either missed it (my apologies if that's the case) or you were attempting to redirect the narrative. If the latter, not sure why you randomly make negative false comments about what you think I am doing etc instead of answering a question that wasn't even in the contect of this thread. That would be like me saying you are too busy "fill in the blank"-ing around to answer my question (among other unanswered questions that I won't bother to rehash) about how large retail dealers price their product and why they freely choose to use that mechanism as the best source for the market price.

As for the price during the Hunt Bros era. It was real. Trades were executed. Mark-to-market was realized. The account balances were very real. Physical trades took place at prices and funds were exchanged. The other hypothetical question is just rhetorical and speculative in nature. Such questions are answered with whatever one wants it to be.

Cheers!

natsb88 wrote:This is interesting.

Reporting from CNBC and Quartz points to strong circumstantial evidence that one or more traders received an early leak of the Federal Reserve's surprise decision last week not to slow down its bond purchases.

Markets swung rapidly on the 2 p.m. announcement last Wednesday, with stocks, bonds, and the price of gold all skyrocketing. Somebody placed massive orders for gold futures contracts betting on exactly that outcome within a millisecond or two of 2 p.m. that day -- before the seven milliseconds had passed that would allow the transmission of the information from the Fed's "lock-up" of media organizations who get an early look at the data and the arrival of that information at Chicago's futures markets (that's the time it takes the data to travel at the speed of light. A millisecond is a thousandth of a second). CNBC's Eamon Javers, citing market analysis firm Nanex, estimates that $600 million in assets could have changed hands in that fleeting moment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... nds-early/

Another example of something smelling like rotten fish, but you can't definitively prove it's rotten fish, and therefore, officially, the rotten fish doesn't exist.

You mentioned something about "trying very hard" to prove a point yet you seem to be doing just that for whatever reason.
As to the article, yes it seems that the empiracal evidence points towards a leak. Some of the econ reports have been given to the media in advance using the honor system so they can release the reports at the exact time specified.

Cheers!

Jonflyfish wrote:

natsb88 wrote:Since JFF is too busying self-diagnosing to answer my question, I'll pose it again to anybody else who has thoughts on the issue. Was there "truth in price" when the Hunt brothers cornered the market in 79/80? And is it not at least conceivable that, with access to enough money/credit, the same could be done in reverse? I'm not saying it is going on, I'm asking hypothetically if it would be possible. And if not, what is different about the system today that would prevent it?

No need for the negative prologue to your question is there? Can simply ask the question. However, I don't see your question on this thread. So, I either missed it (my apologies if that's the case) or you were attempting to redirect the narrative. If the latter, not sure why you randomly make negative false comments about what you think I am doing etc instead of answering a question that wasn't even in the contect of this thread. That would be like me saying you are too busy "fill in the blank"-ing around to answer my question (among other unanswered questions that I won't bother to rehash) about how large retail dealers price their product and why they freely choose to use that mechanism as the best source for the market price.

Right here my friend. I'll accept your apology and just ignore all the conditional babbling that came after it.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=26252#p237996

Jonflyfish wrote:As for the price during the Hunt Bros era. It was real. Trades were executed. Mark-to-market was realized. The account balances were very real. Physical trades took place at prices and funds were exchanged.

A manipulated price is still a price, no argument there. But it seems rather disingenuous to call it a true free market price. It was a price made possible by the futures market and heavily leveraged positions. "Truth in price?" Only if one acknowledges that the "truth" is markets trading unbacked contracts on credit are vulnerable to manipulation.

Jonflyfish wrote:The other hypothetical question is just rhetorical and speculative in nature. Such questions are answered with whatever one wants it to be.

That's a cop-out. 30+ years later the bulk of the financial commodity market is still unbacked contracts on credit. But I suppose it's easier to be dismissive than acknowledge potentially catastrophic flaws in the market, since it's still "working" for the moment.

Jonflyfish wrote:

natsb88 wrote:This is interesting.

Reporting from CNBC and Quartz points to strong circumstantial evidence that one or more traders received an early leak of the Federal Reserve's surprise decision last week not to slow down its bond purchases.

Markets swung rapidly on the 2 p.m. announcement last Wednesday, with stocks, bonds, and the price of gold all skyrocketing. Somebody placed massive orders for gold futures contracts betting on exactly that outcome within a millisecond or two of 2 p.m. that day -- before the seven milliseconds had passed that would allow the transmission of the information from the Fed's "lock-up" of media organizations who get an early look at the data and the arrival of that information at Chicago's futures markets (that's the time it takes the data to travel at the speed of light. A millisecond is a thousandth of a second). CNBC's Eamon Javers, citing market analysis firm Nanex, estimates that $600 million in assets could have changed hands in that fleeting moment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... nds-early/

Another example of something smelling like rotten fish, but you can't definitively prove it's rotten fish, and therefore, officially, the rotten fish doesn't exist.

You mentioned something about "trying very hard" to prove a point yet you seem to be doing just that for whatever reason.
As to the article, yes it seems that the empiracal evidence points towards a leak. Some of the econ reports have been given to the media in advance using the honor system so they can release the reports at the exact time specified.

Cheers!

Not "trying hard" to do anything. Simply another example of what you yourself said earlier:

Jonflyfish wrote:What I take from this story is that nobody can prove that there was manipulation just like nobody can prove that there wasn't.

Gold instead of silver, but it seemed relevant to the general discussion.

natsb88 wrote:Right here my friend. I'll accept your apology and just ignore all the conditional babbling that came after it.

Already said it in advance so the choice is yours. Just like your choice to begin with negative prologues, falsely stating what I am doing, and continuing ignoring my question about how large retail dealers price their product and why they freely choose to use that mechanism as the best practices.

natsb88 wrote:A manipulated price is still a price, no argument there. But it seems rather disingenuous to call it a true free market price. It was a price made possible by the futures market and heavily leveraged positions. "Truth in price?" Only if one acknowledges that the "truth" is markets trading unbacked contracts on credit are vulnerable to manipulation.

There is nothing "disingenuous about what I said about prices. You may not like the price but to those who execute trades at agreed upon prices are experiencing very real financial consequences. All the hyperbole you, as a physical dealer, keep regurgitating about how you or anyone else feels about the financial markets means nothing to the market.
You keep trying to discredit real prices as somehow not being real, yet ironically, you still haven't answered how retail physical dealers e.g. Apmex or Tulving generate their bid and offer prices and what form of currency they want to settle with. I'm sure they use the best practices approach to both.

natsb88 wrote:That's a cop-out. 30+ years later the bulk of the financial commodity market is still unbacked contracts on credit. But I suppose it's easier to be dismissive than acknowledge potentially catastrophic flaws in the market, since it's still "working" for the moment.

Um, no. You asked a rhetorical and speculative question. As to what you have now posted, no. the majority of contracts are not traded on credit. There is an initial margin requirement and a maintenance requirement. Positions move according to the account equity. Exposures that go into negative equity are not allowed. That would be extending credit and leaves the FCM fully exposed. they don't allow you to fall below the maintenance level, hence are not unbacked. It is a zero sum market, unlike those who have middlemen who stand in the middle and take a significant percentage of value from the buyer and seller with no added value. Anything is "potentially catastrophic". Many folks make (or take) large sums from others as fear mongers. Such efforts have worked for millennia, not just for the moment.

Cheers!

Jonflyfish wrote:

Treetop wrote:

Jonflyfish wrote:I don't try "so hard" to convince people of anything. I do notice many here who try so hard to force their views (which may be a conflict of interest) on others by repeatedly attacking my comments as a way to make their perspective sales-worthy.

You dont try so hard beyond a large portion of your posts belittling those you disagree with on said topic. I often found your opinion on the market interesting but I stopped even reading your posts 95% of the time. (admittedly also alot less interesting after you were dead wrong in price direction awhile back, having said it was about to rise right before it spent months falling. I asked you about that and you said that the rise was to come after it finished falling, rather then acknowledging you were wrong. Most of us have called some movement or another incorrectly Im not aware of anyone else here trying to pretend they were still correct when obviously not.)

I really don't know what the point of your main body paragraph is but it appears that you were attempting to, as you say, "belittle" me with a bunch of random fragments.
As for belittling others, I don't know what you mean. A typical thread with many charged reactions seems to occur when I post a perspective, idea or in this case a news headline that concludes the long anticipated findings of the CFTC that apparently didn't say what many wished it would have, so they came charging after me for sharing.

Cheers!

Id love to hear how you believe I tried to belittle you with "random fragments". Which part of my post was random fragments? The part I explained I dont like how you talk down to people? Or the part I explained that I have less respect for someone who made excuses pretending they were correct when I had asked you why you thought a past prediction of yours was so wrong?? Neither of those was random or a fragment. Guess you had to say something if you didnt intend to respond honestly??

I find it amazing you are claiming not to care what others think on the issue, when the bulk of the thread (and heck a large chunk of your posts forum wide) are your posts speaking in a very authoritarian nature, and putting down anyone who disagrees. If your just a regular dude sharing your view, why all the emotion while also pretending your the one with a cool head? I see others more then willing to debate you on the topic in this thread and others, but seems to me your the sole person who adamantly cares the stance of others on the topic, as well as trying hard to frame the mindset of others in a poor light. You treat the discussion (over several threads not just this one) as if you are fighting a war of ideas that you intend to win, rather then a friendly discussion with fellow metals enthusiasts. I dont think you are fooling many saying otherwise. Maybe you should apply "truth in price" to the way you discuss this topic???

oh well... to each his or her own I guess.

(note to others who have gotten into rather pointed discussions with jff on this here or in the past. It is easy to see why some slid into that having been talked down to, but try to be more careful, it lets him pretend he somehow had the moral high ground)

Back on topic here... In all honesty if there IS/WAS true manipulation beyond the obvious watering down by trading more of an item then exists, it stands to reason that the regulatory body was already subverted and in on the game so to speak, otherwise it shouldnt be able to get to that point. So Im not sure we really have any less reason to suspect manipulation then we ever did. Nor can we truly prove it one way or the other. Reading between the lines, my take is there likely is manipulation. It might not be as deep or able to control said markets as some believe but I have seen enough that suggest to me its likely markets can be atleast swayed. I think honesty would have us all admit none of us can truly KNOW. I think the "bailouts" showed us just how corrupt our gov can be. Congress doesnt even know where they sent trillions of dollars of my childrens future, yet they voted for it. So apparently much of congress cant even be considered "insiders" to aspects of our power base. LOL. Rather alarming actually.

I might also point out the entire purpose of the current futures trading IS to regulate markets!! There have been both benefits to this and major issues. I know a bit more about commodity crops in this regard. I could point to cases where it really helped farmers and cases it hurt them. As well as having lots of traders who just play on the swings yet affect the price of items once deemed so important we needed to make futures trading to keep prices stable. Last several years for instance before the official numbers come out we get told how BAD it will be. Which drives price and many make money on this before we find the actual numbers. Seems rather concerted actually. (editted to add: I actually know a few commodity farmers who do VERY well, because they have a firmer grasp of actual yields then what the media or financial sources have been known to portray and can time their sales accordingly, savvy farmers are doing very very well with this, the less savvy not so much) With all these players making money on these swings its actually very counter to the original intent of these markets, and back to the greater point manipulating the markets by stabilizing them was literally the intent here.

Is it really such a jump to think there could be an effort to control metals, when their price has the potential to reflect badly on our nations currency?? Our currencies position as global reserve already being questioned by BRICS nations with IMF already discussing potential alternatives for reserve currency. The way our gov seems to think and act I imagine it could easily be viewed as an item of national security. All speculation of course, but there is alot of meat to such speculation imo. Its like finding out how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop, the world may never know......

Jonflyfish wrote:...and continuing ignoring my question about how large retail dealers price their product and why they freely choose to use that mechanism as the best practices.

I addressed that point a full week ago. Large dealers are fully hedged. Financials are a convenient mechanism for that. They play the buy/sell retail/wholesale spread, not the silver price. Smaller dealers follow the pricing of their competitors, who are basing their prices on financials, since that's their hedging mechanism. No mystery there. Nothing about that legitimizes the financial price as a true physical supply and physical demand based natural market price. It's used because it is there. It is what it is. Without a gigantic unbacked financial market (in comparison to the actual physical flows) the market price would be different. That has always been my point. I haven't said it would be higher or lower, I simply said it would be different. I personally believe that silver, sans an overpowering derivative financial market, would experience less extreme volatility, but that's a different topic.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=25591&start=50#p237446

Jonflyfish wrote:

natsb88 wrote:That's a cop-out. 30+ years later the bulk of the financial commodity market is still unbacked contracts on credit. But I suppose it's easier to be dismissive than acknowledge potentially catastrophic flaws in the market, since it's still "working" for the moment.

Um, no. You asked a rhetorical and speculative question. As to what you have now posted, no. the majority of contracts are not traded on credit. There is an initial margin requirement and a maintenance requirement. Positions move according to the account equity. Exposures that go into negative equity are not allowed. That would be extending credit and leaves the FCM fully exposed. they don't allow you to fall below the maintenance level, hence are not unbacked. It is a zero sum market, unlike those who have middlemen who stand in the middle and take a significant percentage of value from the buyer and seller with no added value. Anything is "potentially catastrophic". Many folks make (or take) large sums from others as fear mongers. Such efforts have worked for millennia, not just for the moment.

So this is significantly different today than it was in 79/80? That helps answer my "what is different today" question. Too bad we had to wade through so much misdirection to get to it.

Let me restate my initial premise since we have yet again derailed: we have already seen the financial market drive silver to artificial highs that were not based on the true physical supply and physical demand characteristics of the silver market (Hunt brothers). I am simply asking if it is not conceivable that the same could happen in reverse, holding silver to artificial lows. I am not claiming that it is happening, I am considering whether it could. You are calling my question speculation as if speculation is a bad thing. Yet you defend the practice of speculation in the financial markets. Interesting that it strikes such a nerve.

Treetop wrote:(note to others who have gotten into rather pointed discussions with jff on this here or in the past. It is easy to see why some slid into that having been talked down to, but try to be more careful, it lets him pretend he somehow had the moral high ground)

You'll notice I largely ignored the second half of this post

Treetop wrote:
Id love to hear how you believe I tried to belittle you with "random fragments". Which part of my post was random fragments? The part I explained I dont like how you talk down to people? Or the part I explained that I have less respect for someone who made excuses pretending they were correct when I had asked you why you thought a past prediction of yours was so wrong?? Neither of those was random or a fragment. Guess you had to say something if you didnt intend to respond honestly??

I find it amazing you are claiming not to care what others think on the issue, when the bulk of the thread (and heck a large chunk of your posts forum wide) are your posts speaking in a very authoritarian nature, and putting down anyone who disagrees. If your just a regular dude sharing your view, why all the emotion while also pretending your the one with a cool head? I see others more then willing to debate you on the topic in this thread and others, but seems to me your the sole person who adamantly cares the stance of others on the topic, as well as trying hard to frame the mindset of others in a poor light. You treat the discussion (over several threads not just this one) as if you are fighting a war of ideas that you intend to win, rather then a friendly discussion with fellow metals enthusiasts. I dont think you are fooling many saying otherwise. Maybe you should apply "truth in price" to the way you discuss this topic???

oh well... to each his or her own I guess.

(note to others who have gotten into rather pointed discussions with jff on this here or in the past. It is easy to see why some slid into that having been talked down to, but try to be more careful, it lets him pretend he somehow had the moral high ground)

Back on topic here... In all honesty if there IS/WAS true manipulation beyond the obvious watering down by trading more of an item then exists, it stands to reason that the regulatory body was already subverted and in on the game so to speak, otherwise it shouldnt be able to get to that point. So Im not sure we really have any less reason to suspect manipulation then we ever did. Nor can we truly prove it one way or the other. Reading between the lines, my take is there likely is manipulation. It might not be as deep or able to control said markets as some believe but I have seen enough that suggest to me its likely markets can be atleast swayed. I think honesty would have us all admit none of us can truly KNOW. I think the "bailouts" showed us just how corrupt our gov can be. Congress doesnt even know where they sent trillions of dollars of my childrens future, yet they voted for it. So apparently much of congress cant even be considered "insiders" to aspects of our power base. LOL. Rather alarming actually.

I might also point out the entire purpose of the current futures trading IS to regulate markets!! There have been both benefits to this and major issues. I know a bit more about commodity crops in this regard. I could point to cases where it really helped farmers and cases it hurt them. As well as having lots of traders who just play on the swings yet affect the price of items once deemed so important we needed to make futures trading to keep prices stable. Last several years for instance before the official numbers come out we get told how BAD it will be. Which drives price and many make money on this before we find the actual numbers. Seems rather concerted actually. (editted to add: I actually know a few commodity farmers who do VERY well, because they have a firmer grasp of actual yields then what the media or financial sources have been known to portray and can time their sales accordingly, savvy farmers are doing very very well with this, the less savvy not so much) With all these players making money on these swings its actually very counter to the original intent of these markets, and back to the greater point manipulating the markets by stabilizing them was literally the intent here.

Is it really such a jump to think there could be an effort to control metals, when their price has the potential to reflect badly on our nations currency?? Our currencies position as global reserve already being questioned by BRICS nations with IMF already discussing potential alternatives for reserve currency. The way our gov seems to think and act I imagine it could easily be viewed as an item of national security. All speculation of course, but there is alot of meat to such speculation imo. Its like finding out how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop, the world may never know......

Unfortunately, I'm not here to entertain your belittling and cantankerous frolic. You speak very dogmatically towards others with a jovial tone that I don't have time for.
Enjoy your diatribes.

Cheers!

Jonflyfish wrote:
Unfortunately, I'm not here to entertain your belittling and cantankerous frolic. You speak very dogmatically towards others with a jovial tone that I don't have time for.
Enjoy your diatribes.

Cheers!

That is the first time Ive ever been accused of the highlighted part. Thanks for the laugh on that one. If you ever find the time Id love to see what was dogmatic in my posts, or belittling and cantankerous for that matter. I find differences in perspective very interesting. You can PM it to me if you like. So how does the only dogmatic person in the thread view me as dogmatic? I dont even have firm beliefs on the topic, beyond a "likely" and "possible".

and for fun...

dog·mat·ic (dôg-mtk, dg-)
adj.
1. Relating to, characteristic of, or resulting from dogma.
2. Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles

hmmm, so you yourself said we cant prove this one way or the other, while me and others simply speculated. I think you might want to reread your posts and the definition of dogmatic?? or not. you seem a bit confused about who is showing this tendency.

Treetop wrote:

Jonflyfish wrote:
Unfortunately, I'm not here to entertain your belittling and cantankerous frolic. You speak very dogmatically towards others with a jovial tone that I don't have time for.
Enjoy your diatribes.

Cheers!

That is the first time Ive ever been accused of the highlighted part. Thanks for the laugh on that one. If you ever find the time Id love to see what was dogmatic in my posts, or belittling and cantankerous for that matter. I find differences in perspective very interesting. You can PM it to me if you like. So how does the only dogmatic person in the thread view me as dogmatic? I dont even have firm beliefs on the topic, beyond a "likely" and "possible".

and for fun...

dog·mat·ic (dôg-mtk, dg-)
adj.
1. Relating to, characteristic of, or resulting from dogma.
2. Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles

hmmm, so you yourself said we cant prove this one way or the other, while me and others simply speculated. I think you might want to reread your posts and the definition of dogmatic?? or not. you seem a bit confused about who is showing this tendency.

To the points in your most recent post, same to ya. Such arrogance and dogmatic undertones you speak with. Some folks are like that. Their ego is too much for them to jump in and disrupt the narrative. Your jovial frolic seems to amuse your ego. Good for you.

Cheers!

Oh looks like censorship has returned. Why was my post selectively deleted? There was nothing inflammatory or personal in any attacking manner. In fact it was quite constructive and very civil. Perhaps it's the dealers protecting the dealers again. Revealing dealer prices must be too sensitive. Forget the free market. There is no free speech here. Manipulation? This board and the narratives are controlled and steered.

Cheers!

This thread reminds me of Heinlein's assertion that the non-productive portions of society, having no respect of their own, need and demand public displays of respect.

I enjoy watching it backfire...

Chuckles!

Jon the member you complained to me about is no longer participating in your threads, yet your antagonistic remarks continue. Your accusations of dogmatic conduct are incredibly hypocritical. You wrongly interpret general comments about the topic of discussion as personal insults against you, and you reply with personal insults instead of addressing the topic of discussion. I fear you may suffer from some form of paranoia or narcissism since you seem to take every single reply to your topics as a challenge to your character, and I sincerely hope you are able to get the help you need to overcome your social difficulties. But as it stands, your contributions to the forum are far outweighed by your condescending ramblings and tangents. You have been warned about your behavior multiple times and long-time Realcenters know how rarely action is taken against members, but I don't have the time or patience to deal with this any longer. Consider your forced hiatus an opportunity to hone your social skills, and maybe someday you can return. Or go troll elsewhere if you choose. Makes no difference to me, it is what it is.

Cheers!

And for the record, I don't see any evidence of posts being modified or deleted in the moderator log. Not sure if that was an attempt to gain sympathy, an attempt to smear the forum management, or genuine confusion on your part.

well then...

there may have been(be) or may not have been(be) silver manipulation, who knows. I do not agree with all of JFF's views, but what the price is right now is what it is. There may be a price that you feel like it should be, higher or lower. The price right now is the true price right now, and whatever the price is tomorrow is the true price tomorrow. There is no other market that uses the "actual" price you think it should be, the only market is the market for silver at $21.68 at the moment.

Funny - I offer $21.68 here on some Buy it Now ads, and there are no takers.

True. There is nearly always a premium on silver. My point is that there aren't members on here sell a common ASE for $75 or $100 or whatever they feel the price should be

ThePowersThatBe wrote:Jon the member you complained to me about is no longer participating in your threads, yet your antagonistic remarks continue. Your accusations of dogmatic conduct are incredibly hypocritical. You wrongly interpret general comments about the topic of discussion as personal insults against you, and you reply with personal insults instead of addressing the topic of discussion. I fear you may suffer from some form of paranoia or narcissism since you seem to take every single reply to your topics as a challenge to your character, and I sincerely hope you are able to get the help you need to overcome your social difficulties. But as it stands, your contributions to the forum are far outweighed by your condescending ramblings and tangents. You have been warned about your behavior multiple times and long-time Realcenters know how rarely action is taken against members, but I don't have the time or patience to deal with this any longer. Consider your forced hiatus an opportunity to hone your social skills, and maybe someday you can return. Or go troll elsewhere if you choose. Makes no difference to me, it is what it is.

Cheers!

And for the record, I don't see any evidence of posts being modified or deleted in the moderator log. Not sure if that was an attempt to gain sympathy, an attempt to smear the forum management, or genuine confusion on your part.

Yours is the last post on realcent I will read. Farewell to all.

shinnosuke wrote:Yours is the last post on realcent I will read. Farewell to all.

BOOOO!

shinnosuke wrote:Yours is the last post on realcent I will read. Farewell to all.

Nooo! Not Shin Chan too.
Maybe Thogey is recruiting RC members to a new secret forum.

Who is thogsuke (my weak attempt at a play on john galt)

Treetop wrote:Who is thogsuke (my weak attempt at a play on john galt)

thogsukigin1

This is a sad moment for me.