Financial Services Specialist
105 RepliesJump to last post
[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]
Right. He's said some foolish things (B shares with front loads, SMA's with "tolls") but passing the 65 w/o studying? Be serious....
[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]
Maybe your procutivity doesn’t suffer because, like many folks in
"Administration" at the wirehouses, you aren’t really doing anything
useful once you get done scheduling your expense account lunches,
sharpening your pencils, and catching up on memo’s and gossip?
[quote=stanwbrown]Right. He's said some foolish things (B shares with front loads, SMA's with "tolls") but passing the 65 w/o studying? Be serious....[/quote]
I never said a B Share has a front load, that was putty boy.
Moving money from one place to another often has a toll. To deny this means you don't do much business.
My firm bought the Dearborn books for the Series 65. They are in PERFECT condition, too, because I didn't crack them. I was too busy making money.
[quote=Roger Thornhill]
[quote=stanwbrown]Right. He's said some foolish things (B shares with front loads, SMA's with "tolls") but passing the 65 w/o studying? Be serious....[/quote]
I never said a B Share has a front load, that was putty boy.
Moving money from one place to another often has a toll. To deny this means you don't do much business.
My firm bought the Dearborn books for the Series 65. They are in PERFECT condition, too, because I didn't crack them. I was too busy making money.
[/quote]
You're a joke, Rogertheyutz. Everyone here sees clearly you haven't the slightest idea what you're yapping about. You might be a “big man” in the world of greasy, overweight, fashion-challenged insurance salesmen, but here you’re a piker that’s in way, way over his head. The newest newbie in my office knows there’s no “toll” on SMAs and what 12b-1 fees are. Go back to your “Groundhog Day” role…<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
[quote=stanwbrown]You're a joke, Rogertheyutz. Everyone here sees clearly you haven't the slightest idea what you're yapping about. You might be a “big man” in the world of greasy, overweight, fashion-challenged insurance salesmen, but here you’re a piker that’s in way, way over his head. The newest newbie in my office knows there’s no “toll” on SMAs and what 12b-1 fees are. Go back to your “Groundhog Day” role…<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />[/quote]
I just woke up to go for my morning run -- since the weather has been so nice, I'll probably get in 8 miles before breakfast -- and look what I find: stanwbrowneye is posting at 1:20 AM.
Yeah, that's what pikers do: Sleep all day, post all night.
[quote=Roger Thornhill]
[quote=stanwbrown]You’re
a joke, Rogertheyutz. Everyone here sees clearly you haven’t the
slightest idea what you’re yapping about. You might be a “big man” in
the world of greasy, overweight, fashion-challenged insurance salesmen,
but here you’re a piker that’s in way, way over his head. The newest
newbie in my office knows there’s no “toll” on SMAs and what 12b-1 fees
are. Go back to your “Groundhog Day” role…<o:p></o:p>[/quote]
I just woke up to go for my morning run -- since the weather has been so nice, I'll probably get in 8 miles before breakfast -- and look what I find: stanwbrowneye is posting at 1:20 AM.
Yeah, that's what pikers do: Sleep all day, post all night.
[/quote]I signed on about 6 and all I saw was a string of posts by Roger Thornhill, running from 7:45 last night until 4 something this morning--you're not getting up for your morning run, you're coming down from your overdose of something.
The fixation with crack is curious. I have no idea how it makes one behave--anybody know? Does a crack addict tend to stay wired all night long, or do they go to sleep?
[quote=Put Trader]
I signed on about 6 and all I saw was a string of posts by Roger Thornhill, running from 7:45 last night until 4 something this morning--you're not getting up for your morning run, you're coming down from your overdose of something.
The fixation with crack is curious. I have no idea how it makes one behave--anybody know? Does a crack addict tend to stay wired all night long, or do they go to sleep?
[/quote]
Hey, putty boy, I noticed that you posted virtually every hour, all day long. There's no way your'e a Top Gun Producer.
Who is paying for your crack? Is it your partner in "crime" stanwbrowneye?
Okay, it's been over 26 hours, and putty crack boy has not answered the following question:
Do you know what the theory was behind the '33 Act?
It is interesting that stanbrowneye hasn't chimed in an answer, either. Afterall, he's been around since the dark ages and thinks he knows everything.
puttyndacrack and stanwbrowneye -- can't answer a question if they can't find the answer using google. Isn't that a riot?
Interesting...
Roger and Put are now fighting. The space shuttle launch was delayed. And there are virgins in Thailand. I am not sure what all of this means...hmmmmmmmm...
[quote=menotellname]Roger and Put are now fighting. The space shuttle launch was delayed. And there are virgins in Thailand. I am not sure what all of this means...hmmmmmmmm...[/quote]
I bet puttyndacrack wishes he could afford some solo vacations to Bangkok.
[quote=Roger Thornhill]
Okay, it’s been over 26 hours, and putty crack boy has not answered the following question:
Do you know what the theory was behind the '33 Act?
It is interesting that stanbrowneye hasn't chimed in an answer, either. Afterall, he's been around since the dark ages and thinks he knows everything.
puttyndacrack and stanwbrowneye -- can't answer a question if they can't find the answer using google. Isn't that a riot?
[/quote]I was ignoring the question because laws don't have theories, they have objectives and purposes. I figured that as a drop out you just didn't know any better, but since you continually make a fool of yourself by asking questions that involve erroneous thinking I'll try to help you.
As I said, laws are written to attempt to regulate behavior, so the Securities Act of 1933 was an attempt to regulate the behavior of those who underwrote securities offerings.
Ostensibly the result would be a prevention of fraud, but just like anti-speeding laws it is relatively ineffective.
As it turns out the profit motive trumps morality--as your entire existence demonstrates.
Now, let's get back to some of the questions that you are unable to answer.
1. In light of the fact that you say you simply went to take Series 24--never opened a book--how did you know that it would be almost identical to Series 26 which you claim to have already taken. It would seem that in order to know what was going to be tested one would have to look at a book.
2. Since only 25% of the Series 24 is an overlap with Series 26 were you surprised to find questions such as:
All of the following are excused absences from the OATS system if resolved within thirty minutes, EXCEPT:
From where I sit a guy who had dropped out of--was it high school or did you actually matriculte in a college or university before being overwhelmed and quit--would have a hell of a time with questions like that without reading books or having spent serious time as a trader. But I'm all ears, how did you do it?
3. Your claim to have passed Series 8 with a score in the high 90s is curious since in thirty years I've never known anybody to score in the high 90s on the test--including myself. I only got 83 on it, and I studied for it for three months, did close to 3,000 sample questions, went to a cram course at STC in Chicago, have that legendary "photographic memory" deal and had been an options guru for years. It was by far the hardest test I have ever taken--although I've never taken the Series 27.
Anyway, the question is simple. What firm were you working for when you took the Series 8?
Surely a maven such as yourself can answer things like that--it's not like I'm asking you to explain the infield fly rule.
[quote=Put Trader]I was ignoring the question because laws don't have theories, they have objectives and purposes. I figured that as a drop out you just didn't know any better, but since you continually make a fool of yourself by asking questions that involve erroneous thinking I'll try to help you.[/quote]
Incorrect. All laws have a theory behind them. I just read your post outloud in front of my securities attorney (he's a practicing member of the firm), and he just shook his head and said "He doesn't know what he's talking about."
I have to agree. You do not know what you're talking about.
[quote=Put Trader]As I said, laws are written to attempt to regulate behavior, so the Securities Act of 1933 was an attempt to regulate the behavior of those who underwrote securities offerings.[/quote]
Nonreponsive. I asked for the theory behind the act. This is VERY BASIC stuff. Any college graduate should be able to at least TRY to come up with something, but you continue to fail.
[quote=Put Trader]Ostensibly the result would be a prevention of fraud, but just like anti-speeding laws it is relatively ineffective.[/quote]
Nonresponsive, poor segue, poor analogy.
[quote=Put Trader]As it turns out the profit motive trumps morality--as your entire existence demonstrates.[/quote]
Ahhhhh....how does that bait taste, puttyndacrack?
"Jealousy is the tribute mediocrity pays to success." - Joe Gandolfo, CLU, Ph.D.
puttyndacrack reeks with envy.
Let me ask you again: What was the theory behind the '33 Act?
I stand behind my answer that laws do not have theories, they have objectives.
In that post was a series of questions for you–give them a
whirl. I know you’re not doing it because every one of them is
based on a lie, and so does everybody who reads this forum.
Why do you do that, Roger? Why lie at all, but especially why lie
in such a way that even with the lies you appear to be a third rate
loser.
I mean if you’re going to lie at least be a war hero or an All American linebacker.
What you’ve done is paint yourself as such a loser that you think lying
that you’re a college drop out who sells life insurance is something to
be proud of.
Impress me, impress us–tell us about the theory behind the Securities
Act of 1933. The easiest way to humiliate me is to demonstrate my
ignorance instead of ducking and weaving like a drunk in a bar fight.
[quote=Put Trader]I stand behind my answer that laws do not have theories, they have objectives.
***Snipped Inane Drivel***[/quote]
So you refuse to answer a question because you can't find the answer using Google.
Would you bet your life on your answer? Seriously? If a gun was pointed to your head, would you really want to stand by your BS answer?
Try again: What's the theory behind the '33 Act?
[quote=Roger Thornhill]
[quote=Put Trader]I stand behind my answer that laws do not have theories, they have objectives.
Snipped Inane Drivel[/quote]
So you refuse to answer a question because you can't find the answer using Google.
Would you bet your life on your answer? Seriously? If a gun was pointed to your head, would you really want to stand by your BS answer?
Try again: What's the theory behind the '33 Act?
[/quote]Amaze me with your brillance loser--answer your own question and invite me to pick it apart.
I'll answer mine to you regarding Series 8. You never took Series 8 because of three reasons. First you are not bright enough to get the jobs necessary to require the license. Second, even if you were bright enough you do not have the education requried by the firms that would sponsor you for the Series 8. Third, you are a pathelogical liar so it is impossible that you could have taken the Series 8.
OK, tell me why I'm wrong there--then amaze us with your insight into the "theory" behind the Securities Act of 1933 and invite me to pick it apart.
But it will have to wait till later--I'm heading for the R train to Brooklyn Heights, a semi-leisurely dinner, then a walk back. It's going to be close to ten before I get back, maybe later if we stop for a Hagen Daz.
That should give you plenty of time to write a brilliant explanation of the theory behind the act--something that I'd be foolish to even attempt to debunk.
[quote=Put Trader] Amaze me with your brillance loser--answer your own question and invite me to pick it apart.
***Snipped More Inane and UNread Drivel***[/quote]
Try again: What's the theory behind the '33 Act?
[quote=Put Trader]
I was ignoring the question because laws don’t have theories, they have
objectives and purposes. I figured that as a drop out you just
didn’t know any better, but since you continually make a fool of
yourself by asking questions that involve erroneous thinking I’ll try
to help you.
[/quote]
As a law school grad, I must say, you really have no idea what you’re
talking about.
[quote=Visigoth] As a law school grad, I must say, you really have no idea what you're talking about. [/quote]
Don't worry, everyone already knows he's FOS.
[quote=Roger Thornhill]
[quote=Visigoth] As a law school grad, I must say, you really have no idea what you’re talking about. [/quote]
Don't worry, everyone already knows he's FOS.
[/quote]Now comes Visigoth claiming that he is a law school graduate--here in cyberspace we can be anything we want to be. In any case, if he is a law school graduate he is too dumb to pass the bar or he'd be practicing law--right?
I have said that The Securities Act of 1933 did not have a theory, that instead it had objectives and purposes.
That is a correct answer unless somebody else comes along and tells me the theory--proving me wrong.
A daisy chain of morons a mile long does not change the fact that what I have said is correct unless somebody can vocalize why it's not.
[quote=Put Trader] Now comes Visigoth claiming that he is a law school graduate--here in cyberspace we can be anything we want to be. In any case, if he is a law school graduate he is too dumb to pass the bar or he'd be practicing law--right?[/quote]
I've had an attorney in my practice for 10 years. He's a member of the bar in several states (was appointed securities commissioner in one of them).
You're not a lawyer. That's all that matters here.
[quote=Put Trader] I have said that The Securities Act of 1933 did not have a theory, that instead it had objectives and purposes.[/quote]
So you're admitting that you do not know the answer.
[quote=Put Trader] That is a correct answer unless somebody else comes along and tells me the theory--proving me wrong.[/quote]
Incorrect. Proving you wrong is an easy exercise.
[quote=Put Trader] A daisy chain of morons a mile long does not change the fact that what I have said is correct unless somebody can vocalize why it's not.[/quote]
Vocalize? This is a message board, moron.