*Sigh*... let me (again) prove you wrong:
Firstly the OP had mentioned problems with his SB firm in the thread (ie that he was getting dealer referral problems and was not confident he'd get his funds returned)... Then I had a brief chat with 'Mallaguti':
Malaguti wrote: "what do you consider a decent broker DJ?"
I wrote (to Malaguti): "Obviously it depends on what you're trading - I'd just try to ensure that you use an institutional quality firm..."
Then you (peakoil) post my response to Malaguti, as a reply to the OP (hence out of context), and get arsey with me for my broker recommendation. You make no reference to his current SB problems, and instead are clearly annoyed with my anti-SB stance. Thus, I say you started this because I have never exchanged a post with you before this thread.
Worm out of this all you like. Twist and turn. But initially I questioned your initial post. Yes I questioned what you wrote. And I did so without being unmannerly. Which forum rules permit. Before you called me "ignorant" this was my response to *your* opinion where *you* said "I'd avoid all the retail crap & bucketshops":
"But wait a minute, didn't the OP state that he'd only been trading for "three months"? So not only is he a relative newbie but he's also, whether you like it or not, most likely classed as a "retail client", and one seemingly in need of at least one good retail outfit. He's chosen spread betting, and that's his choice. Besides, if he doesn't have institutional amounts to play with, then why tell him to "avoid" retail firms? "
What's "arsey" about that? What's more did I deserve *this* response from you?
"Of course, please feel free to follow peakoil's advice and loose[sic] money.
The level of ignorance on these forums from many posters is astounding. It becomes very clear now why 95% of retail lose money..."
I was frankly surprised by your rudeness first. And then:
(1) You assume that his following my advice to choose at least two spread-betting firms *if* he continues to spreadbet will lose the original poster money.
(2) You assume that I am ignorant.
(3) You assume that 95% of retail lose money.
You assume too much.
So, without name calling, I countered your assumptions with some fact to chew over. But you didn't quite like that, did you? How dare I show you up like that!? Aren't you a man who's smarter than everyone else? A man who is always right? A man who is so brilliant no amount of facts can get in his opinion's way? Oh the cheek of me! Sorry to rattle your pram, but I am usually very respectful of other posters on this forum; alas, once you hit me 'below the belt', I had no problem either disagreeing, or with my continuing to find fault in your assumptions. As the song goes... "you can fool some people some time, but you can't fool all the people all the time."