Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
Replies to Msg. #811536
.
 Msg. #  Subject Posted by    Board    Date   
13475 Re: Wave Knowd
   Kudos CF! He accuses you "It would behoof (sic) you well to stop insin... 		tkc   ALEA   11 May 2013
 4:39 AM
13473 Re: Wave Knowd
   That's what I was referring to: [i]"... Why did awk get a preview?... 		awk   ALEA   11 May 2013
 2:59 AM

The above list shows replies to the following message:

Re: Wave Knowd

By: Cactus Flower in ALEA
Sat, 11 May 13 2:53 AM
Msg. 13472 of 54959
(This msg. is a reply to 13471 by awk)
Jump to msg. #  

hi awk,

"It would behoof you well to stop insinuating "dark things" and get back from naive to rational and fair thinking."

thanks for the friendly advice. but first, let's quickly unpack this.

1. not sure what the "dark things" might be. alleging that wave appears to tell certain people about things ahead of time is surely not especially controversial. take for example a poster's recent "guess" that an unannounced $2m order would appear in the q4 results. and blimey, there it was in the financial statements.

2. did i insinuate "dark things", or did i just mention them, plain and simple? if someone has nothing to be embarrassed about, the simple remedy is clarification. when i make mistakes i am not averse to withdrawing them. it appears in this case i was wrong in my assumption, so i withdraw the question that depended upon it.

3. some folks pretend to prescience when they think they hold an advantage in knowledge they should not have. when in fact they stand in disgrace and should hang their heads in shame for having it. trading on inside information is illegal, harms the market and confers an advantage upon the trader - and a disadvantage on those who deal based only on public information. the latter have a reasonable claim to righteous indignation. i sometimes make that claim for myself and other folks who observe the rules of the marketplace. again,not so much via insinuation is by frontal assault. i actually try hard to avoid non-public information purportedly derived from wave but i am always interested in legitimate third party resources.

4. i have frequently and consistently demanded a level playing field for wave information distribution so that no investor has an unfair preference over another. where there is the appearance of a crack pipe, I have sought to expose it. i have tried to embarrass those who pedal purported inside information into ceasing to do so. i think i have had considerable success on the boards in furthering that aim.

5. i know this drives such information into the email space. if folks prefer to share this purported non-public information in the dark, then they can do so. my preferred space is out here where the sun shines.

6. not sure about the connection between "naive" and the insinuation of "dark things". it is surely cynical rather than naive to believe in a "dark" conversation behind the scenes.

7. i always endeavour to be rational.

8. i apologise for any errors in being unfair and will happily retire any other mistakes i have made if you or others identify them.