Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

weeble1000 wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:


I have some background in cultural anthropology - which is largely about anectdotal data - so I learned never to discount it.

Statisticians, on the other hand, deal with quantifiable data - and anecdotal data bothers them - whether that data is right or wrong.

The Auld Grump, cultural anthropology is also why I sampled hákarl.... which was not quite the nastiest food that I have ever tried....

As a historian and small group researcher, I share your views about anecdotal data. History is defined as a discipline by a methodology designed to draw useful inferences from anecdotal data. Without it historians would just be...cultural anthropologists or something.

As a historian, I disagree with this statement on multiple levels.

Uhhh...then you are a terrible historian. No offense, but you ought to know why history is distinguishable as an academic discipline. If you didn't pick that up in grad school, that's a problem, and if you picked up in grad school and disagreed with it for some reason then you are an awful representative of the discipline equipped with the power to do measurable harm to the public good.

It would be like a chemist disagreeing with the scientific method if you could release drugs to the public with nothing other than peer review. History is only truly different from the many disciplines from which it borrow methodology in terms of identifying, understanding, interpreting, and accounting for source bias. If you aren't following methodology on those lines, then you aren't a historian.

This, however is off topic and if you would like to continue having a substantive discussion about this I would be more than happy to do so in another thread in an off topic board or via PM, email, snail mail, or phone.

A PM will be winging it's way to you with multiple academic references as to the nature of historiography shortly.

 Ketara wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:


I have some background in cultural anthropology - which is largely about anectdotal data - so I learned never to discount it.

Statisticians, on the other hand, deal with quantifiable data - and anecdotal data bothers them - whether that data is right or wrong.

The Auld Grump, cultural anthropology is also why I sampled hákarl.... which was not quite the nastiest food that I have ever tried....

As a historian and small group researcher, I share your views about anecdotal data. History is defined as a discipline by a methodology designed to draw useful inferences from anecdotal data. Without it historians would just be...cultural anthropologists or something.

As a historian, I disagree with this statement on multiple levels.

Uhhh...then you are a terrible historian. No offense, but you ought to know why history is distinguishable as an academic discipline. If you didn't pick that up in grad school, that's a problem, and if you picked up in grad school and disagreed with it for some reason then you are an awful representative of the discipline equipped with the power to do measurable harm to the public good.

It would be like a chemist disagreeing with the scientific method if you could release drugs to the public with nothing other than peer review. History is only truly different from the many disciplines from which it borrow methodology in terms of identifying, understanding, interpreting, and accounting for source bias. If you aren't following methodology on those lines, then you aren't a historian.

This, however is off topic and if you would like to continue having a substantive discussion about this I would be more than happy to do so in another thread in an off topic board or via PM, email, snail mail, or phone.

A PM will be winging it's way to you with multiple academic references as to the nature of historiography shortly.

Oh YEA! History fight! I am running a day-long miniatures game tomorrow and will be out of town on business most of next week, so if I can't get a substantive reply to you in the short term that is the reason.

For those of you who are wondering what this is all about, it appears that Ketara and I have passionate though conflicting views about our discipline. Such things happen. I expect the disagreement would almost certainly appear quite droll and academic from the outside, but is quite exciting.

As Daniel K. Richter has said, and wargamers will appreciate his grandiose language, "history is a serious, essentially mythic, business of defining group identity." You all may not realize it, but Ketara and I could very well be fighting over how your children will conceive of themselves within the context of familial, national, and societal relationships.

I'm a historian and I specialize in Antiquity and Dark Ages as well as Native American history. Heck, anecdotal is sometimes all I have to work with. :(
But in terms of this conversation, it probably has limited value.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I'm a historian and I specialize in Antiquity and Dark Ages as well as Native American history. Heck, anecdotal is sometimes all I have to work with. :(
But in terms of this conversation, it probably has limited value.

That's an odd combination. My specialty is also American Indian history, which perhaps you may have guessed from my D. K. Richter quote. My wife specializes in Medieval Wales, and I often have to explain why she is not a marine biologist.

 azreal13 wrote:
Jesus Derek, can you at least TRY to mitigate your tone somewhat?

I find myself in the bizarre position of agreeing with some of your points and still wanting to argue with everything you wrote because you're coming across so high handed and patronising.

Huh? I was complimenting frozenwastes, not belittling him.

He understood the concept of support and resistance and had trouble conveying that information to the board. I helped him clarify the concept and he didn't get defensive about it. The simple fact that he knew what support and resistance levels are suggested to me that he had actually been involved in the stock market more than most people normally do. So I acknowledged the fact that the amount of information he does know, is greater than your average individual. He then followed that up with a well thought out response. What is the problem?

 Kroothawk wrote:
Dakka's rule #1 doesn't apply to friends of Michael Dobson

Are we going to get more automatic trades from Michael Dobson when we go through the 500 level so some secret entities can take over GW?

dereksatkinson wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Jesus Derek, can you at least TRY to mitigate your tone somewhat?

I find myself in the bizarre position of agreeing with some of your points and still wanting to argue with everything you wrote because you're coming across so high handed and patronising.

Huh? I was complimenting frozenwastes, not belittling him.

He understood the concept of support and resistance and had trouble conveying that information to the board. I helped him clarify the concept and he didn't get defensive about it. The simple fact that he knew what support and resistance levels are suggested to me that he had actually been involved in the stock market more than most people normally do. So I acknowledged the fact that the amount of information he does know, is greater than your average individual. He then followed that up with a well thought out response. What is the problem?

Really? You really don't see how your "compliment" to one user was in fact a massive backhander to everyone else who has participated in this thread who you've borderline mocked, sometimes purely for holding a contrary opinion to yours?

I guess we've discovered the root of the problem.

 Ketara wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:


I have some background in cultural anthropology - which is largely about anectdotal data - so I learned never to discount it.

Statisticians, on the other hand, deal with quantifiable data - and anecdotal data bothers them - whether that data is right or wrong.

The Auld Grump, cultural anthropology is also why I sampled hákarl.... which was not quite the nastiest food that I have ever tried....

As a historian and small group researcher, I share your views about anecdotal data. History is defined as a discipline by a methodology designed to draw useful inferences from anecdotal data. Without it historians would just be...cultural anthropologists or something.

As a historian, I disagree with this statement on multiple levels.

Dear gods, above and below - do you know how many arguments that I went through in college about the nature of history?

Some history is quantifiable - Rome, as a not at all random example, kept records that still exist in part to this day.

Some is arguable as being biased - but other things are quantities of items shipped, consumed, or moved around - which are among the most important primary sources of that period.

There are arguments about why legions were moved from Sarmatia, which in turn lead to a successful, if short lived rebellion, but it is known that those legions were moved.

Both anecdote and quantifiable data are important for history - but a common approach is to use anecdotal data to form a theory and then use quantifiable data to confirm or contradict that theory.

Even in more recent histories... the arguments over the root causes of the ACW can go on for hours and hours of enjoyable ranting. (State rights vs. federal authority. Slave ownership vs abolition of slavery. Slave supported Plutocracy vs. Industrialized Plutocracy. Etc., etc., etc.. With supporting evidence including Confederate states that had higher number of volunteers in the Army of the Republic than in the Confederate army (Not total number of soldiers, just volunteers. The draft, you see....))

History and cultural anthropology are related, but distinct, disciplines.

But very few history courses include the professor bringing in fermented fish products and worse, just to illustrate that other cultures are different.. (Worse was huitlacoche... and we were very glad that Professor Sturdivant could not get his hands on Kiviaq - despite his loving description of the stuff....)

Part of what made the arguments enjoyable was their quintessentially unwinnable nature....

The Auld Grump - next up, whether the wings of the Balrog were actual or metaphorical....

Although the history fight is an interesting diversion, people would appreciate the thread better if we all got on topic.

We should also lay off personal references.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Although the history fight is an interesting diversion, people would appreciate the thread better if we all got on topic.

We should also lay off personal references.

One last note - as a History Major (and Classics Minor!) myself, I'd LOVE to see this discussion played out in public down in the OT Forum.

If you haven't already - please start a thread in there!

Thanks!

 azreal13 wrote:
Really? You really don't see how your "compliment" to one user was in fact a massive backhander to everyone else who has participated in this thread who you've borderline mocked, sometimes purely for holding a contrary opinion to yours?

I guess we've discovered the root of the problem.

I can see how you could take it like that but that wasn't the intent. it's just stating a fact. Allow me to elaborate.

Everyone is ignorant about most things. That is why we have professional designations and career paths. I don't argue with my doctor or dentist when they tell me i'm wrong. I pay them for a service that I don't know how to provide adequately. I might tell a carpenter how to build my house but if they say it's going to collapse, you bet i'll listen. When I take my car in to a mechanic, I might get a second opinion if I don't trust the guy, but that is because of my own personal ignorance that i'm having to hire him in the 1st place.

Having only general knowledge on any subject means you are ignorant. Acknowledging that shouldn't bruise anyone's ego.

On top of that, however, there's a level of polite discourse that is necessary for Civilization to continue to function.

And on top of that, there's Rule #1 here.

dereksatkinson wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Really? You really don't see how your "compliment" to one user was in fact a massive backhander to everyone else who has participated in this thread who you've borderline mocked, sometimes purely for holding a contrary opinion to yours?

I guess we've discovered the root of the problem.

I can see how you could take it like that but that wasn't the intent. it's just stating a fact. Allow me to elaborate.

Everyone is ignorant about most things. That is why we have professional designations and career paths. I don't argue with my doctor or dentist when they tell me i'm wrong. I pay them for a service that I don't know how to provide adequately. I might tell a carpenter how to build my house but if they say it's going to collapse, you bet i'll listen. When I take my car in to a mechanic, I might get a second opinion if I don't trust the guy, but that is because of my own personal ignorance that i'm having to hire him in the 1st place.

Having only general knowledge on any subject means you are ignorant. Acknowledging that shouldn't bruise anyone's ego.

I don't accept medical advice from someone on the Internet on the say so that they're a doctor.

You see the distinction?

 azreal13 wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Really? You really don't see how your "compliment" to one user was in fact a massive backhander to everyone else who has participated in this thread who you've borderline mocked, sometimes purely for holding a contrary opinion to yours?

I guess we've discovered the root of the problem.

I can see how you could take it like that but that wasn't the intent. it's just stating a fact. Allow me to elaborate.

Everyone is ignorant about most things. That is why we have professional designations and career paths. I don't argue with my doctor or dentist when they tell me i'm wrong. I pay them for a service that I don't know how to provide adequately. I might tell a carpenter how to build my house but if they say it's going to collapse, you bet i'll listen. When I take my car in to a mechanic, I might get a second opinion if I don't trust the guy, but that is because of my own personal ignorance that i'm having to hire him in the 1st place.

Having only general knowledge on any subject means you are ignorant. Acknowledging that shouldn't bruise anyone's ego.

I don't accept medical advice from someone on the Internet on the say so that they're a doctor.

You see the distinction?

Bingo.

The fact that you use technical terms doesn't mean anything. Look over at the Chapterhouse case thread. If you want people to believe that you know what you're talking about then put what you're talking about into a language everyone can understand rather than use unexplained terms.

 azreal13 wrote:

I don't accept medical advice from someone on the Internet on the say so that they're a doctor.

You see the distinction?

Do you claim to have the same professional designation? Since I haven't seen you make that claim, I am assuming you aren't right? So it's safe to say that you do not have a degree or any form of certification in finance or experience in the stock market. Aside from watching the e-trade baby on tv that is.

Meanwhile, I've posted 2 different times my credentials and the mods deleted my link and explanation of what series 7, series 63 and series 65 mean. We have FINRA regulating my industry and I can prove my credentials at any time. Go look it up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
If you want people to believe that you know what you're talking about then put what you're talking about into a language everyone can understand rather than use unexplained terms.

Umm I did that.. I pointed people to the glossary on the LSE site to help them understand what automatic trades were because there was confusion for like 6 pages.

I also gave an overview and links to resources for technical analysis since there was confusion about how to read charts.

dereksatkinson wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

I don't accept medical advice from someone on the Internet on the say so that they're a doctor.

You see the distinction?

Do you claim to have the same professional designation? Since I haven't seen you make that claim, I am assuming you aren't right? So it's safe to say that you do not have a degree or any form of certification in finance or experience in the stock market. Aside from watching the e-trade baby on tv that is.

Meanwhile, I've posted 2 different times my credentials and the mods deleted my link and explanation of what series 7, series 63 and series 65 mean. We have FINRA regulating my industry and I can prove my credentials at any time. Go look it up.

Hooo boy, where to start?

Firstly, no, you've not seen me claim any credentials, because, as you've rightly deduced, I don't hold any. Does that exclude me from a decent knowledge of the topic? No. Do I claim anything more than a superficial knowledge of the wheelings and dealings of the financial markets? No. I will claim a respectable level of knowledge of how businesses work internally and with regard to their market, due in part to personal, professional experience and in part due to academic study though. With all due respect, I've also worked with "professionals" in several spheres who had strings of letters after their name and certificates all over their office who I wouldn't trust to find their ass with both hands and a map.

The fact you hold credentials speaks nothing to your competence, especially in an industry where opinion, judgement and experience can count for a lot. Heck, I hold a qualification in computing, I'd still be a gak programmer.

I have no idea what the etrade baby is.

Can we just ignore the troll and return to topic?

On topic: Only a few sales, nothing noteworthy, share price still dancing around 505p.

 Kroothawk wrote:
Can we just ignore the troll and return to topic?

On topic: Only a few sales, nothing noteworthy, share price still dancing around 505p.

Kroot, there is nothing troll like about his posts unless you wish to count your own posts ITT the same?

Frankly, the way the pair of you have carried on has been pretty shameful, I'm sure you're both better than this, and pretending to post some literal non-fact about the share price just to excuse calling Derek a troll isn't fooling anyone.

And because apparently is has to be brought up AGAIN, Rule #1 here also means not referring to other posters as Trolls.

Ironically enough, calling someone a troll oftentimes constitutes trolling itself!

 Alpharius wrote:

Ironically enough, calling someone a troll oftentimes constitutes trolling itself!

In my experience, those accusing others of internet-trolling are typically the ones most guilty of it themselves.

(Off topic, how many people are aware that "trolling" on the internet is a reference to fishing, not ugly humanoids who live under bridges?)

Anyway, while I can't say that Derek's delivery is the most fluffy-bunny I've ever seen, he does at least support his assertions with actual information. I think it's funny that commentators have dismissed his statements because they don't believe he's the expert he claims, and then when he shows that he has provided his credentials previously, commentators then dismiss him because just because he has credentials still doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about.

Here, have some cake. While you've got it, why not eat some, too.

Actually, if by "commentators" you are referring to me (and frankly, the cap fits as if it were tailor made) I've actually tried on numerous occasions to persuade Derek to be slightly more "fluffy bunny" precisely because I see merit in his point of view and I see that getting lost in people's reaction to his manner of expression.

The point I was trying to make is "I'm an expert cause I say so, look at all these certificates" is an argument that holds very little weight, doubly so when communicating with complete strangers from the far side of the planet, essentially anonymously. Much better, IMO, to express your arguments in clear, concise, non-jargon/industry speak language and let them speak for themselves, if you really know what you're talking about, you don't need to TELL people you know what you're talking about.

This has not happened frequently enough ITT by my reckoning, and there's way too much willy waving going on, when in actual fact nobody has been, or will be, proven wrong or right in their assertions until at least the next GW report, and realistically, the next 2 or 3.

 azreal13 wrote:
The point I was trying to make is "I'm an expert cause I say so, look at all these certificates" is an argument that holds very little weight, doubly so when communicating with complete strangers from the far side of the planet, essentially anonymously. Much better, IMO, to express your arguments in clear, concise, non-jargon/industry speak language and let them speak for themselves, if you really know what you're talking about, you don't need to TELL people you know what you're talking about.

This has not happened frequently enough ITT by my reckoning, and there's way too much willy waving going on, when in actual fact nobody has been, or will be, proven wrong or right in their assertions until at least the next GW report, and realistically, the next 2 or 3.

Bingo again.


Short of anything drastic happening I can't see anyone changing their current stance so we just have to wait and see.

But why automatically dismiss someone who works in the field (and has attempted to document it multiple times), but not automatically dismiss someone who is a complete lay person?

Saldiven wrote:
But why automatically dismiss someone who works in the field (and has attempted to document it multiple times), but not automatically dismiss someone who is a complete lay person?

I'm not automatically dismissing them. I find Dereks manner pretentious and grating which makes me disinclined to listen to him. I have, however, read through everything in this thread and he has failed to convince me.

Saying that the economy of Cyprus or Greece is representative of the entire of Europe was pretty pants-on-head stupid.

Saldiven wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:

Ironically enough, calling someone a troll oftentimes constitutes trolling itself!

In my experience, those accusing others of internet-trolling are typically the ones most guilty of it themselves.

(Off topic, how many people are aware that "trolling" on the internet is a reference to fishing, not ugly humanoids who live under bridges?)

Anyway, while I can't say that Derek's delivery is the most fluffy-bunny I've ever seen, he does at least support his assertions with actual information. I think it's funny that commentators have dismissed his statements because they don't believe he's the expert he claims, and then when he shows that he has provided his credentials previously, commentators then dismiss him because just because he has credentials still doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about.

Here, have some cake. While you've got it, why not eat some, too.

I dismissed him because his data usually seems 'off' to me, and I do not have the time, inclination, or expertise to evaluate it properly. In my experience, when something about a data set looks wrong, even in terms of presentation, it's usually because there's something wrong about it. He also seems wedded to advancing a particular agenda.

Antagonistic writing style, the appearance of a self-aggrandizing agenda, and the shady-looking nature of his quoted data was the trifecta that got him put on my ignore list, where I think he only has one or two friends.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Saldiven wrote:
But why automatically dismiss someone who works in the field (and has attempted to document it multiple times), but not automatically dismiss someone who is a complete lay person?

I'm not automatically dismissing them. I find Dereks manner pretentious and grating which makes me disinclined to listen to him. I have, however, read through everything in this thread and he has failed to convince me.

Saying that the economy of Cyprus or Greece is representative of the entire of Europe was pretty pants-on-head stupid.

True, but the idea that there is some sort of cabal of investors out there attempting a secret hostile take-over of GW is equally stupid.

Saldiven wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Saldiven wrote:
But why automatically dismiss someone who works in the field (and has attempted to document it multiple times), but not automatically dismiss someone who is a complete lay person?

I'm not automatically dismissing them. I find Dereks manner pretentious and grating which makes me disinclined to listen to him. I have, however, read through everything in this thread and he has failed to convince me.

Saying that the economy of Cyprus or Greece is representative of the entire of Europe was pretty pants-on-head stupid.

True, but the idea that there is some sort of cabal of investors out there attempting a secret hostile take-over of GW is equally stupid.

Indeed but surely the professional should not be making claims which are equally stupid as a layperson when discussing the subject he is supposedly an expert in.

So in a way, Kroot comes out better as he has the defence of ignorance.

 azreal13 wrote:
The point I was trying to make is "I'm an expert cause I say so, look at all these certificates" is an argument that holds very little weight, doubly so when communicating with complete strangers from the far side of the planet, essentially anonymously. Much better, IMO, to express your arguments in clear, concise, non-jargon/industry speak language and let them speak for themselves, if you really know what you're talking about, you don't need to TELL people you know what you're talking about.

Man.. Look at how many times i've fact checked assertions in this thread. The automatic trades deal wasn't me showing my credentials. It was me going to the damn website and showing you the glossary.

Over a week before that big block trade hit, I flat out said that if someone is working out of a block, you'd never see it hit the exchange (which was indeed the case) and you'd see a bounce follow that. Completely contrary to what you guys were saying.

There are some very basic things i've corrected here. Hell.. Skkipper came onto this thread and flat out told everyone I made him 100k based on my advice. So now you are going to sit here and call me incompetent? lol



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Saying that the economy of Cyprus or Greece is representative of the entire of Europe was pretty pants-on-head stupid.

It's also a pretty major misrepresentation of what I said.

What I said was that the banking system in Europe isn't structured in a way that is stable due to excessive leverage. Too many banks own sovereign debt from neighboring countries which undermine the solvency of those banks. Portugal, Spain, Italy.. All had a HUGE flare up in yields a couple years ago because of Greek defaults which in turn, created havoc in countries that have next to no trading relationship with them. Cyprus blew up because the CDS on Greek debt (which was their hedge) didn't pay out and caused 2 of their largest banks to go under. That in turn, caused their economy to blow up.

And as I've pointed out before, my first job was with Mark Hart at Corriente Capital Management. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703503804575083813492209390

If you look me up on finra, you can see that.

dereksatkinson wrote:
There are some very basic things i've corrected here. Hell.. Skkipper came onto this thread and flat out told everyone I made him 100k based on my advice. So now you are going to sit here and call me incompetent? lol

Anecdotal evidence? I don't know this Skkipper so I have no idea whether he made 100K from your advice or not.

I could claim to have taught Stephen Hawking everything he knows, which would obviously mean I am the greatest theoretical physicist alive today. Just because I say it doesn't make it true.

@derekatkinson
Without going back over many pages would I be correct in summarising your general position is that the drop in GW shares was more to do with general Macro Market conditions than was due to the GW financial report and the lack of Dividend




Edit : slightly better grammar !

Saldiven wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Saldiven wrote:
But why automatically dismiss someone who works in the field (and has attempted to document it multiple times), but not automatically dismiss someone who is a complete lay person?

I'm not automatically dismissing them. I find Dereks manner pretentious and grating which makes me disinclined to listen to him. I have, however, read through everything in this thread and he has failed to convince me.

Saying that the economy of Cyprus or Greece is representative of the entire of Europe was pretty pants-on-head stupid.

True, but the idea that there is some sort of cabal of investors out there attempting a secret hostile take-over of GW is equally stupid.

DA's comment about Greece is you go back and read it plus other comments about it was actually meant thematically and also as an example as to the fact of how the European block is linked to such an absurd degree that the economic impact of Greece and Cyprus can have unexpected consequences. Heading to default even smacked the share prices of unrelated US stocks such was the blind panic - I know my own personal holdings become an ocean of red during that period and I hold mostly US and Asian stocks.

Even if Europe is on the road to recover, a threatened default by Greece or Cyprus (and maybe even Spain) could have far reaching effects.

He wasn't saying it is representative - there is a huge difference.

As for Kroot and his secret cabal he is seeking to unmask ---- that tinfoil doesnt appear to be blocking out those rays.