Tim, I don't wan't to regurgigate this sorry thread, but honestly, at some stage you will really have to explain to me on what exacty you are founding your impression that Toast was "winning" the argument when he had absolutely zero verifiable facst, a couple of lies and slandatory accusation, and nothing else he was bringing to the table, that statement of yours is totally and absolutely beyond me if we want to deal in facts and not opinions or beliefs here.
Hi Markus,
This is a reasonable enough request and I will respond - albeit with a sense of unease. I can't provide a truthful answer without being critical of some of your posts to this thread. So, before making my comments, I'll preface them by saying that I enjoy most of your posts on T2W and, broadly speaking, I agree with the majority of them. So, please keep that in mind and try not to be offended!
Okay, here goes. I won't get into the nitty gritty of the merits or otherwise of random entry and the respective points that you and DT made, as that's not the basis for my conclusion that he faired rather better in the 'debate' than you did. My conclusion is based on the manner in which you each conducted your arguments, rather than the details of them. I haven't bothered to re-read the thread before writing this, so my comments are more of an overall impression - i.e. there will be instances where they don't apply.
Generally, DT presented his argument in a well written and logical way. Subscribers to the thread may not agree with his points, but they could understand them and see where he's coming from. When he was questioned, he elaborated his position and explained it differently so that members could understand it better. He confined his comments to the points raised, rather than questioning the poster who made them.
When you posted your counter arguments, they were fine to begin with, citing examples of tests that you felt 'proved' that random entry works and giving examples of great traders who have made fortunes using very simple things like MACD etc. So far so good. Where you lost my support was when you failed to address the specific points raised in DTs posts and became entrenched in your views. This resulted in restating your position ad nauseum and then, when that didn't work, you got personal. Latterly, you sought to discredit DT by attempting to link him with The Expert and SOCRATES etc. In a nutshell, you resorted to trolling, attacking the individual rather than the content of their posts. Had you confined yourself to addressing the points raised by DT, rather than getting emotive and going on the offensive, then you may well have 'won' the argument. In that regard, meanreversion did a very good job. Compare your posts to his and, hopefully, you'll understand my point. Anyway, that was your mistake and what prompted me to intervene when I did.
Lots of love,
Tim.
