Why are the "Dear Ones" sending everyone to JOB? - page 11
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
Does it not work for you? On what basis is the conclusion drawn? Which one works? Is it fundamental or does it not work at all? And what does TA have to do with this thread anyway?
And it's not working for /You. And I gave TA as an example. None of the "old moderators" allowed to decide "where the author should go".
The new ones don't work very hard either, by the way. They are also helped by those who are not formally moderators.
The new service was created by the administration of the forums, and it is offered as an alternative, not as a final verdict.
. None of the "old moderators" were allowed to decide "where the author should go".
Crisis, comrades. Throwing ourselves at each other, yapping. Isn't it time to quit forex? ))
If tools worked - they would always work. Take a hammer, for example - it's a good tool that works. If you need to hammer a nail into a board, a good hammer does a good job. You won't have to choose and guess whether you shouldn't use hammer today, but try spanner or meat grinder...
Hands can be crooked. But a hammer never fails, it always hits where it's pointing.
Imagine a hammer with its head spinning back and forth... - that's an example of TA tools.
Sergei, I'll try it point by point:
Newbies are different. ....
This has nothing to do with newbies!?? :о)
Novice moderators have a huge disadvantage. They by their own logic of behaviour are still forumers, but with the "moderator" nameplate already attached to their belly. You shouldn't relate to any novices at all - "nothing personal", just adherence to forum rules. And nothing else! You of all people should know the difference!!!
What you wrote - all true, but it may be true only for a forum citizen - Mathemat, but not for a moderator Mathemat. Remind me, forum rules set the degree of idiocy with which one is still allowed on the forum?
Now let's take the threads in which the reference to Job goes: "Need to do...", "Screw in the alert", "Help insert command" (and then decompile), etc.
Is there a difference? What do you think? Who is more pleasant to share a tip and even a bit of code, and who is better to send straight to Job?
let the forum people decide, not your personal attitude. There won't be any questions. Just don't answer and that's it. "Nothing personal" should be your motto from now on.
With all due respect to you - this is just your imho, Sergey. A lot of people don't think so, myself included.
Alexey, I respect you no less and perhaps even more :o))))) - Of course my opinion, but I came to this during 3-4 years of research. TA doesn't work ... Within my robustness criteria. !!!! Forgot to add. Sorry.
Once again, I'll cite Roger's post, with which I completely agree:
And - for an appetizer:
Thanks, I've had enough of quoting :o)
Nah, Sergei, it's "plus one hundred and fifty!", you're not on the subject of Albany :) It's just the highest degree of approval, no maths.
I see :o) Is there a higher one? Are there more big numbers?
And about the waste of posts and cheap pursuit of ranking, I've already written: if it were possible to turn off this number from the visibility of the forum, I'd be the first to do so.
What's that got to do with it? Seems your colleagues have developed some kind of phobia... :o) I'll have to start giving you beer...
That's it! That's what I'm talking about! )))
===
Eh! I'm glad I ran into a reasonable person today! ))) // I'll have a drink out of joy - there seems to be some beer left from yesterday's football match in the fridge on the ground floor...
===
Be right back...
P.S. By the way, I watched with interest the thread where you posted the results of forecasting about half a year ago. And those predictions were made on the basis of TA if I'm not mistaken. Or again the terminological confusion is to blame, i.e. everyone understands TA in his own way?
No, not TA. I made a promise to my colleagues to brief them about the system, which I hope I will do in the near future.
"The old moderators worked and work more in a command and control style. Like a commander in the army: "orders and punishments are not subject to appeal". The new ones are much more democratic: they correct spelling mistakes, explain the reasons for their actions, educate... And where the "new" explains where to go to the author (and by the way, does not "decide where to go," but offers an alternative), the old instead of explanations would take down the topic or send the author himself to the bath. I think we are moving in the right direction. I agree with many that there is a lot less trash on the forum, and the decreased activity has objective reasons. Of course you can not please everyone, points of view differ and this is normal, too bad that there is no way to create a poll and get more or less adequate statistics of opinions.
Let the forum members decide, not your personal attitude. There won't be any questions. Just don't answer, that's all. "Nothing personal" should be your motto from now on.
There's a law - not Murphy's, but someone else's: "Competent, when promoted, moves to a new level of incompetence in a new position".
The TA doesn't work... within my criteria of robustness.
Yep, now I get it. Every megaparadigm must necessarily have limitations in applicability - otherwise it would be impossible to disprove it.
Is there a higher one? Are there more big numbers?
That seems to be the biggest number in Albany.
A truce?
Yeah - that's it! // I wasn't really arguing with anyone.
===
It's the law of fate - beer in the third...)))
to Mathemat:
Ага, теперь понятно. Каждая мегапарадигма обязательно должна иметь ограничения в применимости - иначе ее невозможно было бы опровергнуть.
Yeah, you don't have to go far for a rebuttal. You don't even have to leave this resource to understand, both individually and statistically. It's enough to look at the development of championship results to come to an understanding of the situation. And you don't need to fudge the limits to achieve the impossibility of refutation.
It is a specific area where common sense does not play a key role at all. And why waste your time on it? No, no, no, mine appreciates time, mine won't waste it (that's me going unnoticed in Albany)
Seems to be the biggest number in Albany.
What a pity, but maybe it's for the best? After all, any system of calculus does not limit nature, but only limits the "calculator", including all its vices. :о)
to Svinozavr
Yeah - that's it! // I didn't quarrel with anyone, in fact.
Yes, I did, "I'm not vindictive, but I reread logs" (С). :о) Good - peace, friendship, chewing gum! By the way, there is still the tricky question of chewing gum :o)
Law of Troubles - beer turned out to be in the third...))
And you've got "albanian"? Did the beer turn out to be in the 'third floor'? Or did you drink it on the way? :о)