It's pretty tough even for dedicated down-raters to get messages all the way down to three stars when there are 25 or more aggregate aliases giving these totally-worthless messages five-star ratings.
With this kind of ballot-stuffing, I can't imagine anyone even being interested in ratings at all. Are they meaningful when one person can rate them ten or twenty times or even more?
It's a constant source of amazement to me that so many people really think that ratings matter. That if someone with multiple aliases rates a Hee-Haw post five stars thirty times that somehow it's essential reading.
What others may think exceeds reasonable limits I do not. It takes a LOT of time and effort and research to keep one step ahead of Wall Street and I definitely want to be ahead of the crowd.
I'm retired with no time clocks to punch and all kinds of time to devote to doing what I want to do. And THIS is EXACTLY what I want to be doing. Don't tell me how I should be spending their time.
Others might prefer chasing hard little white balls or something but I prefer delving into Pfizer and into various options strategies and giving this board the benefit of my vast experience and knowledge in these areas.
You admit to characterization of your "research" as exceeding reasonable limits? Great! Now Get A LIFE! It can hardly be an enjoyable life, what with obsessing about Pfizer 24/7.
I meant "exceeding reasonable limits." In other words, there are no limits to the amount of time I will spend researching Pfizer.
I'm not much of a drinker and so "immoderate" has nothing to do with anything.
Never let it be said that I'm unwilling to educate, inform and enlighten even simpleton detractors.
What's funny is that if you truly were to take my advice regarding the out-of-the-money naked put writing at my brokerage, you very likely would no longer be so much of a detractor. You may not like me all that much but the numbers are hard to argue with. This board should be about making money - not on individual personalities.
Hey Alan - I have a question for you about your use of the word "inordinate".
There are two meanings, one of which is archaic. I would never expect one to use the word in the archaic sense, but it actually makes sense in your usage.
1) archaic : disorderly, unregulated
2) exceeding reasonable limits : immoderate
Which is it? Did you mean that your "homework" was "disorderly, unregulated"? Or did you mean that it was immoderate?
Just another of the simpleton detractors, seeking education and enlightenment from the wise man of the wee hours.
That was bad luck!
Now Mike is older than you - how does he deal with technology? Is he as backward as you?
Graduating college in the 1950s, he sure did not have exposure to technology in school. Was he as "lucky" in adopting new technology as he was in going to college when old "JJ" was "in the chips"?