Agip.
You do agree that you were wrong then?
Agip.
You do agree that you were wrong then?
I learned something here - thanks for fighting hard on this.
By the way - there is a brilliant book on how our grammar rules got to be the way they are - much is random arbitrariness, other rules are imported from latin and don't fit English - really interesting book.
For example - I had no idea that French was the language spoken by the nobility in England from around 1000-1300. That period has left its marks on grammar rules.
And much depends on when and where the language was codified - some grammar expert would codify a rule b/c he was from, say, margate, where people spoke that way. While in Hampshire the rules were different. Great book.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Mother-Tongue-English-That/dp/0380715430
Farthing wrote:
Agip.
You do agree that you were wrong then?
was I wrong? it's hard to say - I suppose some experts feel the hyphenation is not necessary so that's good evidence on your side.
But other guides say the hyphens are necessary, all the time.
I'll say that in this case, Klondike probably gets a pass. If he were writing a formal english paper...I wouldn't give him a pass.
Farthing wrote:
Agip.
You do agree that you were wrong then?
why are you still pretending to be 'farthing,' klondike?
no one but you uses the:
"Agip.
You do agree...."
formulation.
You did all the legwork.
It's just that all the sources you find state that hyphens are optional unless their absence causes ambiguity and give several clear examples.'
This contradicts your argument that they are always required (except the archaic Brandeis cite which does indeed support you).
Ergo you were wrong. QED.
But your research was good and I previously had no knowledge on this topic.
If you guys put half the energy that you put into this grammatical "debate" into researching the market, you may make some money.
K5 wrote:
The facts don't support your assertions.
If you are afraid to honestly discuss this stuff, stop bringing it up.
From a recent study performed by a Jewish academic:
"...the current Jewish share of high-ability American students seems likely to be around 6%, the Asian one at 25-30%, and the white Gentile total at 65-70%"
However, excepting a school like Cal Poly where admission is based solely on test scores and so is largely Asian, Asian students are extremely under represented at "elite" universities while Jews are equally over represented.
@ 25% of undergrads at Harvard are Jewish. Based solely on tests scores, that number should be @ 6%.
How can this be?
The usual. The Nepotism of the elite ruling class. While we are allowed to recognize the reality of the nepotism of the WASPs when they were running things 100 years ago, for some reason we are supposed to ignore it when it comes to the current elites and believe the current society is a meritocracy.
Of the twenty-four(24) senior administrators of the Ivy League colleges and universities, twenty(20) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 83%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the senior administrators of the Ivy League colleges and universities by a factor of 41.5 times(4,150 percent).
Source?
Obvious Question wrote:
K5 wrote:The facts don't support your assertions.
If you are afraid to honestly discuss this stuff, stop bringing it up.
From a recent study performed by a Jewish academic:
"...the current Jewish share of high-ability American students seems likely to be around 6%, the Asian one at 25-30%, and the white Gentile total at 65-70%"
However, excepting a school like Cal Poly where admission is based solely on test scores and so is largely Asian, Asian students are extremely under represented at "elite" universities while Jews are equally over represented.
@ 25% of undergrads at Harvard are Jewish. Based solely on tests scores, that number should be @ 6%.
How can this be?
The usual. The Nepotism of the elite ruling class. While we are allowed to recognize the reality of the nepotism of the WASPs when they were running things 100 years ago, for some reason we are supposed to ignore it when it comes to the current elites and believe the current society is a meritocracy.
Of the twenty-four(24) senior administrators of the Ivy League colleges and universities, twenty(20) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 83%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the senior administrators of the Ivy League colleges and universities by a factor of 41.5 times(4,150 percent).
Source?
__
if you want a quick bout of nausea, take a sentence from klan man's post there and do a google search on it - it's all nazi and klan sites - wicked stuff
that said, I don't doubt 20% of Harvard undergrad is Jewish in some way. it's not nefarious, but it is probably the truth.
Obvious Question wrote:
K5 wrote:The facts don't support your assertions.
If you are afraid to honestly discuss this stuff, stop bringing it up.
From a recent study performed by a Jewish academic:
"...the current Jewish share of high-ability American students seems likely to be around 6%, the Asian one at 25-30%, and the white Gentile total at 65-70%"
However, excepting a school like Cal Poly where admission is based solely on test scores and so is largely Asian, Asian students are extremely under represented at "elite" universities while Jews are equally over represented.
@ 25% of undergrads at Harvard are Jewish. Based solely on tests scores, that number should be @ 6%.
How can this be?
The usual. The Nepotism of the elite ruling class. While we are allowed to recognize the reality of the nepotism of the WASPs when they were running things 100 years ago, for some reason we are supposed to ignore it when it comes to the current elites and believe the current society is a meritocracy.
Of the twenty-four(24) senior administrators of the Ivy League colleges and universities, twenty(20) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 83%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the senior administrators of the Ivy League colleges and universities by a factor of 41.5 times(4,150 percent).
Source?
He want give you one. But he'll accuse you of hijacking the argument when you ask for simple proof.
Or he will copy and paste from Prison Planet.
Oh how they want to remain ignorant.
Show me the money wrote:
If you guys put half the energy that you put into this grammatical "debate" into researching the market, you may make some money.
Didn't look like a debate to me.
looked like agip once again getting caught in lies.
And, by the way, how does "researching the market" work? What kind of research to you do that allows you to predict the future of the market?
Jewish academic Ron Unz did the research and published his findings.
Basically concluding that the Jews were the new WASPs as far as getting academically unqualified students into the Ivies.
And that Asians were being unfairly kept out; the new Jews if you will.
He was, of course, viciously attacked by the myriad of organizations that exist solely to advance what they deem to be Jewish interests.
Had he come to the same conclusions regarding the WASPs 100 years ago, nobody would have batted an eye. Everyone would have thought -- duh, this is obviously true.
With Jews being today's ruling elite it is a bit different. You cannot even acknowledge they are the elite without facing extreme harassment.
Klondike5 wrote:
Show me the money wrote:If you guys put half the energy that you put into this grammatical "debate" into researching the market, you may make some money.
Didn't look like a debate to me.
looked like agip once again getting caught in lies.
And, by the way, how does "researching the market" work? What kind of research to you do that allows you to predict the future of the market?
Do some research and find out.
Farthing wrote:
Agip.
You do agree that you were wrong then?
agip wrote:
was I wrong? it's hard to say - I suppose some experts feel the hyphenation is not necessary so that's good evidence on your side.
But other guides say the hyphens are necessary, all the time.
I'll say that in this case, Klondike probably gets a pass. If he were writing a formal english paper...I wouldn't give him a pass.
As a third party observer, it's pretty clear you were wrong on this one.
Your wikipedia source shows that your claim of "Must" is untrue. That was your claim.
Also interesting to note that you resorted to trivial grammatical attacks when the Dow dipped.
Good stuff.
and there's the refutating of Unz.
But I don't have a dog in this fight - no doubt jews are out of proportionally repped in the Ivies. I'm not clear why - prob somethign to do with being smart, rich, urban and having the attitude that no one is smarter.
Most people go into an Ivy situation insecure of their abilities so they don't even apply - jews don't have that handicap. Lots of great role models.
re; the grammar fight - I will not agree that the hyphens are optional in formal writing. if the NYT and the Associated Press say they are required, then it is a bloody grammatical rule. I'm not giving an inch on this.
However
I have learned that in casual writing like on lrc the hyphens are not necessary.
as for why I am correcting klan man's grammar - someone else pointed out one error so I piled on with two more. then the whole issue sort of took off.
But your claim it was a 'resort' when the down was down - that is silly - the market was rallying 300 points that day back over 15000. So in fact the opposite is true - instead of needling klan man, as fun as that is, about his loss of tens of thousands of dollars on that day, I was diverting his mind from his no doubt frustration. it wasn't a resort - it actually took his mind off his opportunity cost.
Refutating?
Must be one of those Ivy League words.
The rest of us say refuting.
As I earlier commented, Prof Unz was viciously attacked by the Guard Dog Organizations.
I see you subscribe to the Jews as superior theory. Unfortunately standardized testing points to the Asians as superior when it comes to academics.
Everyone knows the ruling group always practices nepotism.
I am not sure if you are refutating (!) that the elite group is now the Jews or that they practice nepotism. Or both.
In any event, you are deeply in denial
agip wrote:
fair warning - I just put on what I call the agip hedge.
the SP 500 dropped below a certain technical mark, so by my rules I pulled a risk control rip cord and sold some. I also bought the vix and long term zero coupon bonds.
It is all a bit silly, b/c it adds up to only 3% of my portfolio (this is my fun money account), but I bring it up because...
Every time I do this, it works for 1-3 days, I make a few percent on my hedge and I am happy...and then give it all back in the big rally that inevitably follows.
So feel free to use me as a contrarian indicator here.
Hey agip - have you now removed the "agip hedge", since the S&P 500 is probably above that "certain technical mark"?
What is the "certain technical mark?" Surely you aren't hedging every time the S&P drops below the 50-day MA?
Did you lose money?
"I will not agree that the hyphens are optional in formal writing. if the NYT and the Associated Press say they are required"
Which of course they do not. The only link you found to support your view was the Brandeis one. You claimed wikipeida did as well but that turned out to also be false.
There is nothing wrong with admitting you were wrong.
There is something wrong with being unable to admit you were in the face of overwhelming evidence.
"as for why I am correcting klan man's grammar - someone else pointed out one error so I piled on with two more. then the whole issue sort of took off."
Another complete falsehood. Your correction of one point of grammar was in fact incorrect, you tried to make the claim that calling you Agip and not agip was some kind of horrific mistake, and then portrayed a typo as a grammar error. No "someone else" pointed out one (non) error and to describe your pathetic lies defending your claims as the whole issue taking off is yet more dishonesty.
You really are a special kind of fool
hedger wrote:
agip wrote:fair warning - I just put on what I call the agip hedge.
the SP 500 dropped below a certain technical mark, so by my rules I pulled a risk control rip cord and sold some. I also bought the vix and long term zero coupon bonds.
It is all a bit silly, b/c it adds up to only 3% of my portfolio (this is my fun money account), but I bring it up because...
Every time I do this, it works for 1-3 days, I make a few percent on my hedge and I am happy...and then give it all back in the big rally that inevitably follows.
So feel free to use me as a contrarian indicator here.
Hey agip - have you now removed the "agip hedge", since the S&P 500 is probably above that "certain technical mark"?
What is the "certain technical mark?" Surely you aren't hedging every time the S&P drops below the 50-day MA?
Did you lose money?
of bloody course I lost money - the agip hedge never works.
I closed out the hedge with a $151 loss. Which is immaterial in relation to the size of my portfolio, but that would have been a very nice pair of running pants that I need. And a new pair of racing flats.
I use the 5-10-20 momentum strategy as a first line of risk control and a 200 day moving average strategy as a second line of risk control. THey are supposed to improve returns if you stick at it every time...but I started 2 years ago and they have probably cost me a couple of plane tickets to Europe.
http://marketsci.wordpress.com/2008/12/02/5-10-20-trend-following-strategy/http://www.scottsinvestments.com/2009/09/15/backtesting-the-200-day-moving-average-on-spy/