Traders Forum - page 29
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Yes. And? Do you have anything to say to me about it?
Guess for yourself, if you're familiar with the subject. I hope so. Although, if you do, you should have guessed by now.
Guess for yourself if you are familiar with the subject. I hope it works. Although, if you do, you should have figured it out by now.
I guessed what you were hinting at) We've even talked about compensatory behaviour here before. Only, dare I say it, just because your banter is veiled in highly intellectual innuendo doesn't make it (or the author's) any more right.
I'm talking about scale. It is a rare programmer who is able to buy a car for more than a million, but a successful trader (although there are far fewer of them) is quite common. So it was logical to assume that since there are traders here, at least some of them are well off. And the community's reaction to the new member's nickname was very similar to the fact that just no... Not wealthy traders live here at all. Yuri, I am not interested in an argument, just pointing out that indeed many have behaved unkindly. They have had to write such useless and stupid comments. Sometimes it's amazing how bizarre and ridiculous things can be.
I don't want to argue or argue ... why...
if you take the % ratio - I do not know I do not have such statistics - I think no one has it - well, except the tax office
that's why it's hard for me to say ... and compare ... on a scale...
but i have not seen a successful trader/s who bought a car, a flat, a second car, a third flat - for himself, his kids, his parents
but i have seen programmers - and quite a few - and i know them personally - that's why my personal statistics are not in favor of traders
---
As to the subject and the topic
Here I agree with Sergei SK - as a rule such conversations lead to nothing and are most often useless.
except that sometimes you get to know someone a bit better...
SK
I withdraw because I have had negative experiences with such conversations. In my entire history of communication in the Internet (about 15 years) there was only one case where a person listened to the arguments and developed the conversation in order to understand something for themselves and take it on board.
And then. You have to admit that everyone is entitled to their mistakes. You cannot keep offering ready-made solutions and demanding that others ... "should". Everyone has the right to make their own choices, little if those choices don't please us. But we have no right to demand that others live by our charter. Everyone has to go their own way.
As for our motives, for most of us, our motives remain a secret behind the seven seals.
I can guess what you're alluding to) We've even talked about compensatory behaviour here before. Only, dare I say, the fact that your quip is veiled by highly intellectual allusions does not make him (or the author) any more right.
About a certain way of compensatory behaviour, considered directly and exclusively by A. Adler. And it is only natural that you disagree.
Tastes are not in dispute. But on the prerequisite that the satisfaction of one's own taste does not infringe on someone else's dignity.
Fun is when everyone is having fun. And if someone is having fun by giving out slaps and the person in the back of the head isn't having fun... then that's not taste.
If a person who is used to making fun of others, teasing, ridiculing, and poking his nose in mistakes, always having fun, is deprived of such an opportunity, he will quite genuinely feel that his freedom is restricted. And he will feel miserable. And at the first opportunity he will put a button on someone's chair, it's so much fun!
It seems that my first impression that your posts are somehow directed against Korey was not wrong. If it was, I'm sorry.
Maybe you haven't read the thread, but everything Korey has written here is well within the bounds of correctness and goodwill. If someone's humour or irony (of a very high quality, imho) makes them salivate and swear, it's not Korey' s problem.
When it comes to general issues, everything seems understandable. But when it comes to specifics...
The freedom of one ends not where the freedom of the other begins, but where the freedom of the other begins. Here well-known characters exercised their "freedom" to get all over themselves. To support their self-righteousness is hardly worthwhile, it will only delay them in realizing their true role.
It's not fun for everyone. It seems so trivial to me that I won't even back it up with anything. But to impose such a condition is to impose someone else's will on a person. Communists, when they said that the majority is always right and therefore has the right to impose its opinion on the minority, have not yet reached their limit. It turns out that I have to obey (for example, in my perception of fun) everyone and everything individually. And if some misanthrope or just plain sick person isn't having fun, then I dare not have fun either. Yeah, that's cool. Especially to say afterwards that freedom is easy. Really simple. It just isn't!
I won't go into philosophy, some other time. And the practice is simple: the freedom of this forum is limited only by the moderator. The last time he interfered was over a year ago (as far as I know). That in itself speaks for the quality of our communication. Another fact is also significant: even the people who call for mutual respect are not shown the door without thinking twice and have already shown a couple of people the door. This is why freedom must be spoken about carefully and concretely. So that no one has any doubts on his own account.
About a certain way of compensatory behaviour, explored directly and exclusively by A. Adler. And it's only natural that you disagree.
I'm afraid your qualifications are not enough to make your diagnoses worth listening to ))))
...
One man's freedom does not end where another man's freedom begins, but where another man's unfreedom begins. Here, however, well-known characters have exercised their "freedom" to get all sorts of personal. It is hardly worthwhile to support their self-righteousness as it will only make the moment of realizing their true role more distant for them.
...I think we all know who you mean. And, though of course you will deny it, my personality was switched to much earlier (pardon the pun) than I started talking impolitely and targeted. And simply, as they like to do here, you will not be able to excuse yourself without answering for your words, because the correspondence is saved with the date and time.
I withdraw because I have had negative experiences with this kind of communication. In my entire history of communication on the internet (about 15 years) there has only been one case where a person has listened to the arguments and developed a conversation in order to learn something for themselves and take it on board.
And then. You have to admit that everyone is entitled to their mistakes. You cannot keep offering ready-made solutions and demanding that others ... "should". Everyone has the right to make their own choices, little if those choices don't please us. But we have no right to demand that others live by our charter. Everyone has to go their own way.
As for our motives, for most of us, our motives remain a secret behind the seven seals.
Strange things you say, Sergei. "We have no right to require others to live by our charter" means that "we" are a bunch of wild animals. Conscious elements of SOCIETY must (and it is OK, and also necessary!) follow the governing rules of that society. If there are no rules, society is self-destructive. Humans are not ants or bees which instinctively form a society. People have to consciously go to some restrictions in order to form a society, in particular, as you said, restrictions on freedoms that limit the freedoms of others. A forum is a small society. If there are no clear rules governing relationships, then participants will behave to the extent of their development and understanding of their belonging to that society. As it turns out that there are those who consider themselves different from society and who think they can behave as they please (disturbing others), rules simply need to be imposed. Just as the rules of the road help avoid chaos and hence a huge number of accidents, so the rules of the forum will help avoid useless arguments and dozens of pages of "nothing" talk.
I'm afraid your car brand qualifications are not enough to make your diagnoses worth listening to ))))
Now that's right.
Now that's right.