Jonflyfish wrote:It is what it is.
Truth in price.
Engineer wrote:Jonflyfish wrote:It is what it is.
Truth in price.
...and every man has his price. This is especially true of politicians and aspiring bureaucrats, but also applies to judges.
We now return to your regularly scheduled trolling.
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.
Jonflyfish wrote:Corzine and MFG have nothing to do with this. To conveniently associate them with this story is a far reach, even farther is to casually associate this with voter fraud?!
Jonflyfish wrote:It should go without saying that the "price" I'm referring to is the market price.
natsb88 wrote:Which is exactly what I said. "It could be completely true, it could be a complete crock."
natsb88 wrote:Officially there was no housing bubble, until it popped. Officially the banks were too big to fail, until they did. IF there is something going on in the commodities markets, specifically silver, why would it be any different?
natsb88 wrote:...and by "market" you mean financials, which is problematic for reasons already discussed in your other thread.
Jonflyfish wrote:My views are pragmatic and neutral.
Jonflyfish wrote:What I've been and will continue to be a critic of, are the small bucket shop dealers
Jonflyfish wrote:Just sharing a news article that has been a hot topic in this forum. I didn't make it up, nor did I write it. Just a friendly messenger.
Jonflyfish wrote:My views are pragmatic and neutral
Engineer wrote:Jonflyfish wrote:My views are pragmatic and neutral.
...if you say so.Jonflyfish wrote:What I've been and will continue to be a critic of, are the small bucket shop dealers
You've made it abundantly clear that you're a fan of the paper market, and made MANY disparaging remarks about the retail physical market being corrupt. IMHO, you're anything but neutral and just here to continue your diatribe on why paper promises are better than wealth in your pocket.
natsb88 wrote:Which is fine. But if you are simply a messenger of a story you have no vested interest in, there should be no need for you to berate those who express an opinion on the subject.
natsb88 wrote:Pragmatic, sure... Neutral? It is very, very difficult to take somebody seriously when they try so hard to convince people they are neutral. I think there is at least one proclamation in every one of your threads about how incredibly neutral you are. I would be much more inclined to believe your neutrality if you weren't constantly bringing it up.
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.
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.)
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.
Jonflyfish wrote:...so they came charging after me for sharing.
Jonflyfish wrote:No berating by me. However, it is apparent that others have been emotionally charged to berate me for simply sharing.
natsb88 wrote:Where is this happening? The only views presented forcefully in this thread are yours. Several people have expressed general opinions, and your replies have been about how they are wrong and you are right. That's the only "forcing" I see here.
natsb88 wrote: Nobody came charging after you for sharing. Some people expressed an opinion different from yours and you threw a hissy fit.
natsb88 wrote:I sure didn't see it. I made general comments on the tone of official investigations and reports and problems with "market" prices. None of that was about you but you seemed to take it personally. Maybe you think everything is about you. I don't know. These threads start with interesting topics and interesting opinions but quickly degrade into you complaining about being bullied. I don't see it. Perhaps you are overly sensitive or misread the tone of written text? Truly disappointing that you are unable to have a mature discussion among those with differing opinions because I do like to hear opinions from those with much different perspectives than my own. If getting the last word is so important to you, you can have it. "There's no point in arguing with an ibex."
Jonflyfish wrote: . . .
Don't shoot the messenger. I know most will choose to discount or ignore the findings because they want to believe something else. It is what it is . . .
I'm neutral because I simply don't care what the market does- I really don't. I'll trade where the opportunity presents itself without prejudice or bias . . .
Truth in price.
Cheers!
johnbrickner wrote:Jonflyfish wrote: . . .
Don't shoot the messenger. I know most will choose to discount or ignore the findings because they want to believe something else. It is what it is . . .
I'm neutral because I simply don't care what the market does- I really don't. I'll trade where the opportunity presents itself without prejudice or bias . . .
Truth in price.
Cheers!
I won't shoot ya Jonny. I'm in a position where I'm a messenger and get it about once or twice a season. And almost every time it's because the person is either ignorant or has an opinion they don't want changed. I get to tell parents and coaches their child/athlete has an injury. Lately, it's the laws and research dealing with concussions and proper recovery time.
Most of the time, I see it coming. I'll bet you did too, which is why you said "Don't shoot". You may not mean to but, you sure have a knack for stirring up the hornets nest. Truly, the outcome of this investigation is what it was.
Now this whole neutrality thing, an emotional detachment. I think only an opportunist with strict discipline can do so. I can appreciate the trading system you must have. No doubt mechanical and mathematical. Love the charts. But, it can't be totally emotionless can it? Would you do it if you didn't love it? Or is it as others have told me "it's just a game you play to win". In which case it's the money used to keep score. No matter. I'm getting to personal, no need to answer.
In any case, the best athletes I work with are the ones most able to control their emotions on the field of battle. You seem to be able to do the same with a trade where there is a substantial value to it, without attachment. Fairly sure I would have difficulty doing the same. As for me, price is reality and I don't necessarily consider my reality truth. It's just what it is. For you, truth is price. It's going to take me some time to wrap my brain around that concept and drop the one I currently have. But at least I'm open enough to consider it.
Keep posting Jon,
Return to Silver Bullion, Gold, & other Bullion Metals
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests