On the contrary: we were selling JPY, which means you don't love it. It didn't love us back either :-)

Should I say "Do we hate JPY"? LOL...

Certainly not. These are my JPY trades and they are still open:

STO 25 GBP/JPY 247.288 6/27/07 0:25 15 239.950 (16:30:54t) $7,020 $6,074 $4,680 ($6,526) Fix High $11,701

STO 2 AUD/JPY 107.010 7/22/07 17:31 0 101.285 (15:59:58) $0 $511 $965 ($52) Fix Low $966

STO 3 EUR/JPY 168.300 7/22/07 17:31 0 161.670 (16:26:12t) $0 $1,226 $1,677 n/a No calc $1,677

STO 3 CHF/JPY 99.970 7/24/07 19:16 0 98.270 (15:59:44) $0 $1,087 $422 n/a No calc $423

Total profits: $14767 so far...

Sorry, couldn't resist answering this question.

> Total profits: $14767 so far...

> Sorry, couldn't resist answering this question.

Of course you "couldn't resist" touting your system on another
vendors list. Once again a perfect illustration of the type of person
you are. Is that the system with the 38% DD in its first month?
Or one of the other 13 systems?

Thank you.

Yes. I agree. It is a very good question. I gave you the correct answer, since nobody else did...My point is the that you don't love the market, nor does it love you. It simply grants to each system that which it deserves.

If a system is good by a Objective standard, if it is rational, honest, productive, then, other things being equal, one can expect to gain values in dealing with it. If a system is evil, however, if it is irrational, dishonest, parasitical, one can expect from such dealing not value, but loss.

The policy of pronouncing moral judgment is like a policy of system prospecting while wearing a bulletproof vest. It is a process of methodically seeking out and cherishing the virtuous traits one needs in systems, such as effort, courage and idealism, while being alert to the opposites of these traits and to their destructive potential. By contrast, the man who adopts moral neutrality, refraining equally from praise or blame, does not wipe out the facts thereby. What he accomplishes instead is to blind himself to the role of morality in a system's life, subvert his own character, and lose the ability to deal with other systems on the basis of objective principles. The result, among other things, is to consign his system relationships to the realm of chance - and to do even worse: willfully to deprive the good among systems of his sanction and support, while becoming an ally of the evil. He becomes an ally in the sense of leaving that evil uncensured and unopposed, free to continue its course of destruction...

The refusal to judge, like any kind of agnosticism, is itself the taking of a stand, in this case a profoundly immoral stand: When your impartial attitude declares, in effect, that neither the good nor the evil may expect anything from you - whom do you betray and whom do you encourage?

...so long as men have to make choices, there is no escape from moral values, so long as moral values are at sake, no moral neutrality is possible. To abstain condemning a torturer, is to become an accessory to the torture and murder of his victims.

"To abstain condemning a torturer, is to become an accessory to the torture and murder of his victims."

Huh? Could you tie that back in to ANY of the previous conversation?

As a metaphor, it applies, just give it a little thought. You won't like what you come up with but you can always change.

Nothing coming from Palsun and the 7 dwarf aliases (Brian and Howard and Neil and 4 TBD) has either meaning, reason or sanity to me.

The question was legit. What the ??? does that or anything Palsun say have anything to do with anything?

Don't hang around too much with the Palsuns or it will stunt your thinking. If you find meaning in his words and his trading philosophy, then you need to scroll back across the ages (well, the last couple of years) and see the reams of drivel coming from his keyboard.

I didn't read his post, but the thread topic was about falling in love, so probably he said something about morality - why not?

That's correct. What one needs to know in order to appraise a systems morality is not: what did it do last year? The proper question to ask is : what does it say and do recently?

When the facts of a case have been determined, the next step of justice is to evaluate them by reference to objective moral principles. This step is a further expression of the primacy-of-existence orientation, which dictated the fact-gathering stage, and it is essential to the virtue of justice (reliablity - ideally reflected in the P/L per unit figure at C2 which characterizes a system as scalping or not - conveniently absent at C2 for forex systems) There is no more sense or morality in a judge identifying the facts than reaching his verdict by arbitrary feeling, than there would be in a physician collecting medical data, then borrowing his diagnosis from the local witch doctor.

One form of evaluative subjectivism is to judge other systems while upholding no explicit moral principles, either because one has never bothered to consider the subject or because one repudiates all moral absolutes. A judge of this sort (Ross, Sam et. al.) praises or condemns as a matter of whim; he thus discards both justice (reliability) and practicality. Their verdict is detached from the actual nature and deserts of the individual system that is being judged; as a result it is useless as a guide to action.

The same injustice occurs if one (Jules, ST et. al.) does apply explicit principles, but they are themselves nonobjective, for eg., using the Sharpe Ratio (Integrity) exclusively, to select systems ignoring its Expectancy Score (self-esteem).

yes, Palsun.

We should ignore industry standard criteria, and start using perhaps existential and metaphysical standards to judge.

Perhaps then, we can chase butterflies...