[quote=Roger Thornhill]

[quote=Put Trader] What draws my point of view is often the ridiculous nature of another’s point of view.[/quote]

Incorrect. You're just a very disagreeable person. You prefer conflict. This is why you hever have been, and never will be a Top Gun Producer. You may be a dinosaur in age, but you're a rank amateur in experience, because you've repeated your freshman year of failure, over and over, Dilbert.

[/quote]

Ah, a "Top Gun Producer."  Are you a Sergent or a Captain?  If you were brighter, or if you had actually sat in college level classrooms, you would understand that cliche driven attempts at motivation are ridiculous.

[quote=Roger]

[quote=Put Trader] Mojo and Roger are NOT in the securities industry--they're in the insurance industry.  They came from that ridiculous "Top Gun Producer" site--all they know about AG Edwards and/or Smith Barney is that they are brokerage houses where they might have been able to go to work had they not dropped out of school.[/quote]

Incorrect. I've been in the securities business a long time.

And I didn't come from any site. I was posting on this forum before you learned how to use your lobotomy box, chiam yankel.

[quote=Put Trader] Ah, a "Top Gun Producer."  Are you a Sergent or a Captain?  If you were brighter, or if you had actually sat in college level classrooms, you would understand that cliche driven attempts at motivation are ridiculous.[/quote]

If I were any brigher, the sun would have competition, crack boy.

Sitting in college level class rooms has grown boring. I prefer to stand up at the front of the class, interacting with students as an experienced veteran-turned-teacher should. Afterall, I was invited.

The best should give back, in this way. Lifelong members of academia can't speak from experience, but I can.

[quote=Put Trader] How long is a long time?  I have no doubt that you passed your Series 6 and 63 exams after several attempts--but that's not really the "securities business" it's the life insurance business with a side fund.[/quote]

Series 6, 7, 8, 24, 26, 63, 65....all passed on the first try with scores in the high 90s. I actually studied for the Series 6, because I didn't know any better. I studed for the 7 for two hours. Never studied for the 65.

[quote=Put Trader] Been posting on this forum since before I knew how to use......  That's curious since the date next to your name is a week or so ago.[/quote]

You have absolutely no imagination whatsoever. I've been on this forum before, but with different aliases. Those who know me, they know the names.

[quote=Put Trader] That crack will make time go by sooooooo slowly--but you really have not been posting on this forum very long at all.[/quote]

Compared to you? I'm a veteran. You're just cannon fodder.

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

Series 6, 7, 8, 24, 26, 63, 65…all
passed on the first try with scores in the high 90s. I actually studied
for the Series 6, because I didn’t know any better. I studed for the 7
for two hours. Never studied for the 65.

[quote=Put Trader] Merrill Lynch had 157 people take Series 65 before somebody finally passed--and you didn't study for it, yet scored in the high 90s?[/quote]

Let me guess, you were test taker number 156?

The test was very easy. All of them were, to me. I'm a test taker. I read a book once, and can take a test years later, and do well. It's one of my gifts that allows me to be super productive during the day, without having to work as many hours as others do.

I'm the guy that showed up the first day of class for the syllabus, then showed up for the mid-terms and final, and got an A.

Roger,

Seriously.  I think Put Trader sucks just as much as most others do on this forum, but honestly...your statements are ridiculous, and EVEN IF the were true, which they cannot be, you should be aware of how non-credible they make you sound. 

You passed the 65 w/o studying.  How'd you even know what was on it?  You are letting Put's drivel get into your head, and it's making you look like a liar and a idiot.  Chill out. 

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

The test was very easy. All of them were,
to me. I’m a test taker. I read a book once, and can take a test years
later, and do well. It’s one of my gifts that allows me to be super
productive during the day, without having to work as many hours as
others do.

I'm the guy that showed up the first day of class for the syllabus, then showed up for the mid-terms and final, and got an A.

[quote=BankFC]

Roger,

Seriously.  I think Put Trader sucks just as much as most others do on this forum, but honestly...your statements are ridiculous, and EVEN IF the were true, which they cannot be, you should be aware of how non-credible they make you sound. 

You passed the 65 w/o studying.  How'd you even know what was on it?  You are letting Put's drivel get into your head, and it's making you look like a liar and a idiot.  Chill out.  [/quote]

I took the 7 on a Monday, the 24 on a Tuesday. I didn't study for the 24, either. I really didn't have time. They all just blur together, after a while. The material is similar.

The 65 is not a tough exam. They've tried to make it tougher, back in 2000, if memory serves, but it's still not a real barrier to entry.

Just because you have a tough time with exams doesn't mean that others share your problem.

[quote=Put Trader] Do you have no pride, as in zero pride?  [/quote]

That's a very poorly written sentence. This is par for the course, in your case, but this one stands out like a turd in the porta pottie.

[quote=Put Trader] There is not a single soul reading this who believes anything you're saying--and it's never good to stand in public screaming, "I'm lying here!" [/quote]

So now you speak for everyone. Hold on while I laugh. *cough*

Do you think that everyone believes you? I don't. Given the lengthy, and growing, thread that is just about what people think of you, I don't need to speak for others.

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

I took the 7 on a Monday, the 24 on a
Tuesday. I didn’t study for the 24, either. I really didn’t have time.
They all just blur together, after a while. The material
is similar.

The 65 is not a tough exam. They've tried to make it tougher, back in 2000, if memory serves, but it's still not a real barrier to entry.

Just because you have a tough time with exams doesn't mean that others share your problem.

[quote=Put Trader] Only a guy with zero formal education would think that being a good test taker meant you didn't have to study anything at all.[/quote]

Who said I never had to study? Not I. I said I didn't study for the 24, or the 65. I didn't need to. I know the material. I studied for the 7 for a whopping 2 whole hours. I did study for the 6 and 63, because I didn't know any better, plus my employer had us sit in classes once a week for like 12 weeks.

[quote=Put Trader] Roger, what those of us who are good test takers mean is we can prepare fairly easily--it does not mean that we can walk into exams cold.[/quote]

I walked in cold. Passed. BFD

Reading what you write, I can tell that you struggled and probably had to sit more than once.

[quote=Put Trader] Go back and read what you've written.  You have told people who have taken the exams--many barely passing--that you scored in the high 90s without studying.[/quote]

Unlike you, I don't have to read things twice.

I scored in the high 90s on every license exam I've taken.

[quote=Put Trader] I asked earlier why you have a Series 8--please let us know why you needed to take the eight.[/quote]

To make a point.

[quote=Put Trader] I'd also be interested--and I'm sure Joedabrkr would be too--in what you found to be overlap between Series 7 and Series 24.  I always thought there was very specific vocabulary used in Series 24.[/quote]

You actually had a thought? Wow.

The 24 was the easiest exam I've taken. It was almost the same material as the 26.

I know Joe has no doubts about anything I write.

[quote=Put Trader] Am I wrong, is it just an easy test of everyday topics?  You know, Act of '33 and '34 stuff?[/quote]

You're wrong on a regular basis, so I expect this.

The '40 Act is a much more common subject in my office, although sometimes we mention one from 1911.

Do you know what the theory was behind the '33 Act?

I studied for the 7 for a whopping 2 whole hours.<<<Roger



A college dropout studied for the Series 7 in two hours and scored in the high 90s–like 96%.  Is that what you’re saying?



What did you study for those two hours–which of the 1,000 pages of
text and the 1,000 pages of sample questions did you complete?

[quote=Roger Thornhill][quote=Put Trader] I asked earlier why you have
a Series 8–please let us know why you needed to take the
eight.[/quote]

To make a point.

[/quote]

Is that right?  What kind of a point were you trying to make?  What firm sponsored you for it?  Does a firm who is sponsoring somebody for exams at the Series 8 level assure the regulators that the individual being tested is in fact in their management structure?  What is Series 8 1/2 (eight and one half)?

[quote=Prevaricating Roger] [quote=Put Trader] I'd also be interested--and I'm sure Joedabrkr would be too--in what you found to be overlap between Series 7 and Series 24.  I always thought there was very specific vocabulary used in Series 24.[/quote]

The 24 was the easiest exam I've taken. It was almost the same material as the 26.

I know Joe has no doubts about anything I write.

[/quote]

Is that right, Series 24 is almost the same as Series 26?  Why would somebody sitting for the Series 26 need to know how to be excused from OATS and what happens if you withdraw without permission?

You're wrong on a regular basis, so I expect this.

The '40 Act is a much more common subject in my office, although sometimes we mention one from 1911.

Do you know what the theory was behind the '33 Act?

[quote=Roger Thornhill] [quote=Put Trader] Been posting on this forum
since before I knew how to use…  That’s curious since the
date next to your name is a week or so ago.[/quote]

You have absolutely no imagination whatsoever. I've been on this forum before, but with different aliases. Those who know me, they know the names.

[quote=Put Trader]Is that right? [/quote]

Yep.

[quote=Put Trader]What kind of a point were you trying to make?[/quote]

One you clearly would not understand, but it has offices around the nation laughing at you now. How does that bait taste? ROFLMAO

[quote=Put Trader] What firm sponsored you for it? [/quote]

My B/D, silly boy. *chuckle*

[quote=Put Trader]Does a firm who is sponsoring somebody for exams at the Series 8 level assure the regulators that the individual being tested is in fact in their management structure? [/quote]

I find being in management insufficiently challenging. Management is easier than being a rainmaker. Fortunately, I've avoided running an adult day care center, like where you are today. That would be boring watching you do google searches all day trying to catch up with me.

[quote=Put Trader]What is Series 8 1/2 (eight and one half)?[/quote]

That's what you dream of taking, catcher.
[quote=Put Trader]Is that right, Series 24 is almost the same as Series 26? Why would somebody sitting for the Series 26 need to know how to be excused from OATS and what happens if you withdraw without permission?[/quote]

I found the exams to be very similar. Apprently, you've never taken both.

[quote=Put Trader]Is that right, your firm follows Securities Acts dating back to 1911? What does it provide for--or prohibit. You know, what's the Act of 1911 all about?[/quote]

The best in any field tend to know a few things about history. Your lack of knowledge tells everyone that you're not the best in your field (and the only field one can surmise that you are in is that of a flaming troll).

The fact that you don't know when the first blue sky law was written speaks volumes about how truly ignorant you are, crack boy.[quote=Put Trader]Aside to the boys and girls. Does anybody but me think that Roger has gone 'round the bend? The stress of having me and Stan mock him may have pushed him too far--or maybe he's been smoking crack?

Whatever, it's a remarkable meltdown don't you think? [/quote]

More neurotic projection from put the crack addict.

Are you still doing google and yahoo searches looking for the answer?

Let me ask you again: Do you know what the theory was behind the '33 Act?

I know the answer. I've known it for many years. It's a very simple question to answer. A one or two sentence summary is all that is necessary. Anyone with a Series 6 should know this, but you're still looking. That tells me all I need to know about crack boy putty.

Wait, before you go.



You failed to respond to the following:



1.  What was the point you were attempting to make by taking the
Series 8?  Do you even know what the Series 8 qualified the
candidate to do?  What is the status of the Series 8 today?



2.  Regarding the Series 24.  I specifically asked why a
person sitting for the Series 26 would need to know how to withdraw
from OATS and what would happen if you didn’t withdraw with sufficient
notice.  You responded, “I found the Series 24 to be similar to
the Series 26” which would appear to a person of below average
intelligence as being unresponsive to the question.



3. You mentioned a Securities Act of 1911–something I have never heard
of.  So I called our compliance department and they have
never  heard of it.  One of them called me back saying they
had checked with the NASD and the NASD was unaware of it.  So as
of this moment you have two wirehouse SVPs and somebody at the NASD
wondering what you’re talking about.  Are you bright enough to
enlighten us?



Finally your Act of '33 question.  In November, 1932 liberal
Democrats swept to power and high on their list of reforms was Wall
Street which they saw as the cause of much of what was happening in the
early 1930s.  You may be aware that there was a depression–it was
called The Great Depression and you would have read about it in school
had you not dropped out.



Anyway, in the “Roaring '20s” there was massive fraud in the sale of
securities–quite literally brokerage firms were lyiing about what they
were bringing to market.



The newly empowered Congress initally passed legislation that required
that corporations file registration statements with a government body
prior to engaging in a public offering.  Said registration
statements were to be condensed into prospectuses and prospectuses were
to be provided to anybody who requested one.



In separate legislation Congress created the Securities Exchange
Commission.  HOWEVER they attached other legislation to that bill
and President Roosevelt used one  of his first vetos to cancel the
creation of the SEC.  So the Act of 1933 was passed but there was
no organization to enforce its rules.



The following year–the second session of the 1933 Congress–the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 was passed, and when it was President
Roosevelt appointed the first commission with Joseph P Kennedy (father
of JFK, RFK and the fat drunk) as the first chairman.



Over the years the Act of '33 has become known as the "Paper Act"
because it requires the massive amount of paperwork found in the
biz–while the SEC Act of '34 is called the “People Act” because it is
in the '34 legislation that one finds rules about registering
exchanges, firms, and individuals.



What else would you like to know?

Put this is hilarious. It is obvious that you got this explanation from a text book. The style and facts aren't consistent with your normal wording. Are you too stupid to realize this?

Secondly, if you were truly a SR-VP, you would not waste company management and NASD officials time to argue your point on a internet forum.

If you haven't figured it out by now these guys are playing you for a fool and buddy did you swallow the bait!!  No one can waste as much time as you do arguing over insignificant points and be upper management with any company. The more you post on here, the more you expose yourself as being a fraud.

The only question is why you do it. I suspect that only a competent psychiatrist can tell us that.

[quote=Coag]

Put this is hilarious. It is obvious that you got this
explanation from a text book. The style and facts aren’t consistent
with your normal wording. Are you too stupid to realize this?

Secondly, if you were truly a SR-VP, you would not waste company management and NASD officials time to argue your point on a internet forum.

If you haven't figured it out by now these guys are playing you for a fool and buddy did you swallow the bait!!  No one can waste as much time as you do arguing over insignificant points and be upper management with any company. The more you post on here, the more you expose yourself as being a fraud.

The only question is why you do it. I suspect that only a competent psychiatrist can tell us that.

[quote=Coag]

Put this is hilarious. It is obvious that you got this explanation from a text book. The style and facts aren't consistent with your normal wording. Are you too stupid to realize this?

Secondly, if you were truly a SR-VP, you would not waste company management and NASD officials time to argue your point on a internet forum.

If you haven't figured it out by now these guys are playing you for a fool and buddy did you swallow the bait!!  No one can waste as much time as you do arguing over insignificant points and be upper management with any company. The more you post on here, the more you expose yourself as being a fraud.

The only question is why you do it. I suspect that only a competent psychiatrist can tell us that.

[/quote]

Funny, isn't it? I am the puppetmaster!

Watch putty boy bounce up and down on his wee widdle stage!

[quote=Put Trader]Wait, before you go.[/quote]

You sound so desperate. Are you afraid I'll stop paying attention to you, putty boy?

[quote=Put Trader]You failed to respond to the following:[/quote]

Incorrect. I ignored your silly questions and chose not to respond to them.

[quote=Put Trader]1.  What was the point you were attempting to make by taking the Series 8?  Do you even know what the Series 8 qualified the candidate to do?  What is the status of the Series 8 today?[/quote]

I cannot explain it to you. It is beyond your comprehension. This is why everyone is laughing at you right now.

[quote=Put Trader]2.  Regarding the Series 24.  I specifically asked why a person sitting for the Series 26 would need to know how to withdraw from OATS and what would happen if you didn't withdraw with sufficient notice.  You responded, "I found the Series 24 to be similar to the Series 26" which would appear to a person of below average intelligence as being unresponsive to the question.[/quote]

I found the exams to be similiar, enough so that I did not study for the 24, having passed the 26 already. BFD

Your questions are irrelevant. If you want to know the answers, call your compliance department. They apparently know everything there is to know about this business. *cough, cough*

If you can't see the sarcasm dripping of that last paragraph, you're dumber than a rock with lips.

[quote=Put Trader]3. You mentioned a Securities Act of 1911--something I have never heard of.  [/quote]

Of course you haven't, Mr. Encyclopedia. *snicker*

[quote=Put Trader]So I called our compliance department and they have never  heard of it.  One of them called me back saying they had checked with the NASD and the NASD was unaware of it.  So as of this moment you have two wirehouse SVPs and somebody at the NASD wondering what you're talking about.  Are you bright enough to enlighten us?[/quote]

Wow. Your compliance department doesn't know much about the history of securities regulation. I'm shocked....SHOCKED...to find out that I know something they don't. ROFLMAO

Now, knowing more than you, on the other hand, is to be expected.

[quote=Put Trader]Finally your Act of '33 question.  ***snipped copied and pasted text from another web site*** You may be aware that there was a depression--it was called The Great Depression and you would have read about it in school had you not dropped out.[/quote]

I've never dropped out of any school. You cannot prove otherwise, which is why you keep saying the most inane things. Have you taken your meds today?

[quote=Put Trader]Anyway, in the "Roaring '20s" there was massive fraud in the sale of securities--quite literally brokerage firms were lyiing about what they were bringing to market. [/quote]

Your copied and pasted text makes it sound like the 1920s was when securities fraud began. You really should study the subject before again proving that you're completely out of your depth.

In any event, your answer is incorrect (even nonresponsive, as you like to say).

[quote=Put Trader]What else would you like to know?[/quote]

When you breath, do your eyes stop blinking? I can't see how your brain has the power to do both at the same time.

Okay, for the third time:  Do you know what the theory was behind the '33 Act?

I've highlighted the key word in the question, to make it easier for you this time. You'll have to dig deeper than those online help courses you use to cram with. There's even a big HINT in this post, if you're smart enough to notice. Google may or may not be of much help, because you'd have to know what to look for to find the truth, and so far, you haven't been able to cut the mustard.

[quote=Put Trader] Find the textbook.[/quote]

You are afraid, now. You have been exposed.

[quote=Put Trader] I have encylopedic knowlege of Wall Street, I write questions for the tests, I lecture to rookies, I have written training manuals.  [/quote]

Now I know why the tests were so damn easy:  Putty boy wrote them! ROFLMAOSIP

But you don't know the history of securities regulation. Hmmmmmm. I think you're just lying about what you've done.

[quote=Put Trader] I tend to structure things in a very orderly fashion--taking the reader from point a to point b.[/quote]

Now you're high. Are you still doing google searches for the theory, putty boy?

[quote=Put Trader] I am also older than you.  You are too stupid to string together your thoughts--it's not your fault, society wanted you to be dumb so that you were not so much smarter than some of your fellow travellers.[/quote]

Older, but not wiser. As bitter as you sound, you must be very ugly, too. I picture you with that "bitter beer face" from those television ads, with your mouth all puckered up so that it looks like your browneye.

[quote=Put Trader] I am wasting nobody's time but my own.  My work load does not suffer because I spend an hour or so a day playing around with the Internet--so don't worry.[/quote]

I suspect that you're unemployed. Are you in prison?