Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
Give me a break. Brooks claims to trade, he claims to trade what he teaches, he claims that he's a successful trader yet he can produce no proof. He's a dishonest, lying con artist. I have no problem if he markets his product as pure education. This is what price action is all about. Here's the theory and here are the patterns or ways to interpret a chart, no problem with that type of education product at all, but that's not what he's doing. He should be banned until he either produces proof of real trading or comes clean and says he doesn't trade.
What do you mean "Doesn't have the facts." Emmett did everything humanly possible to get "the facts" from Brooks but he wouldn't provide proof that he trades what he sells. He didn't provide that proof because he was unable to. Brooks doesn't trade the method that he sells.
Edit: I posted as BobWest posted. I agree, its just getting nowhere. We discussed above in another thread. Truly pro traders are rarely victims of deception by their very nature. Its not a fair world.
Isn't futuresIO a place where people don't get ripped off? Shouldn't there be some requirement that a vendor produce proof that what they are selling does what they claim it does? I think we can move on as long as out of all of this the bar for vendors being allowed to sell their product is lifted and they have to provide 3rd party verified proof that their product performs. All claims made by or implied by vendors need to be proven.
I didn't realise I was disagreeing with anybody, so I don't need to agree to and I'm not sure why you gave my two observational lines such short shrift, especially compared to some sermons that get posted. Honestly, observing forum herding behaviour just lately has been fascinating. If more took some peaceful time to do so they might figure a few other things out, like why the wave principle exists at all.
My mistake in what I was trying to utilize your words to convey. I wanted to say that I agreed with your point that all the analysis isn't going to change anyone's ideas.
I didn't mean to say anything about agreeing or not with you in terms of the controversy under way. I meant that it was time for the disputants, myself included, to move on, since nothing more was going to be said, and no one was going to be convinced.
Not that there was anything for you to agree to, or that I disagreed. That thought was not aimed at you.
I should have just bowed out a while ago, instead of adding to the heat here. I'll delete that post, since my meaning was unclear, and not add anything more to all this.
Sorry I didn't just do that sooner.
Your point about forum herd behavior is well-made, I'm afraid.
What I meant by he doesn't have the facts, is that he is not in possession of the facts. I'm not stating whether he is right or wrong, because frankly I don't have the facts either.
Yes he tried to get them, but was unsuccessful. He can't confirm that Al is a trader or that he isn't. The best he can do is assume, and his post makes it clear that it's an assumption on what he believes. Everyone is entitled to their own assumption, but let's recognize that an assumption is just that, an assumption.
That's a very big jump in logic to be honest.
Just because someone doesn't provide proof, doesn't mean they are guilty. I'm sure there's a name for that under one of the 100s of logical fallacies
There could be many reasons as to why he won't show proof. Being a fraud is one, prioritization of his personal matters over perceived credibility is another. And frankly it could be anything in between.
To be clear I'm on the side that says Al should provide proof as to whether or not he trades or just call himself a pundit. But I'm not one to let emotions trump logic because this is FIO and not reddit.
One thing is to have a reasonable argument between members based on logic, and another one is grabbing pitchforks and letting our emotions justify the hops in logic.
Let's keep FIO what it is, a great community.
Cheers.
Yesterday's excellence is today's standard and tomorrow's mediocrity