On a day when one can be tense or at least answering calls of margin or questioning positions, I give this to all specs that aren't lurkers or bar flies:

The house of the chief rabbi of Dantzig caught fire, and the contents of his good cellar suffered. The Jews took counsel what to do for their beloved rabbi. A handsome subscription was first proposed, but overruled; then another idea was mooted, then another, each less costly than the preceding. At last it was agreed that everyone should visit the house on a certain day, bringing a bottle of fine wine. After an appropriate speech of greeting, everyone would descend into the cellar and empty their bottles into a vat prepared for the purpose. The day came, and the chief rabbi listened with delight to the flattering addresses of his guests. When the ceremony concluded, he went to the cellar with his family, all brimful of kindly feelings, to taste the result. He turned the tap, a beautiful fluid ran into his glass; he raised it with gratitude to his lips, and suddenly his countenance fell; he slipped a second time, and confirmed that the fluid was pure water. The fact was that each guest had said to himself, "What does it matter whether I put in wine which costs money or water which costs nothing? My own contribution will make no sensible difference to the total result."

I also suggest that you click on the Philosophy link of this site that is directly towards the top to the right of the letter "r" in a woman's name that is held in high regard and read the first paragraph and that which follows.

In my humble opinion, of which I hold myself accountable, too much opinion, politics, religion, and diarrhea of the mouth has been shared of late and over the last few years. It has always been present since I've been on this Spec-List and one that will always be present due to the human condition and speculation. If you feel that you don't like this then please start your own blog, self promotion, email distribution list, or newsletter.

However, there are us that remain constant. Diligent in pursuing a better way to profit. One in which follows a Scientific Method or at least a way in which that we can hold ourselves accountable or existentially are aware of our choices and what we share amongst ourselves while deviation from the philosophy is tolerated.

No, I'm not some, diehard, policeman of the List, nor dogmatic narcissitic bastard. I"m simply a speculator like yourself that wishes the Spec-List would get back to its roots as the Chair intended them to be. I've benefited from it and am grateful. If you've have too, then humbly state such. If not then please talk about bbq or something that pours wine into the Rabbi's vat that can be tested/counted or substantiated to any degree other than emotion or opinion.

With deepest respect and friendship,


p.s. No, I haven't been the victim of a margin call today.





Speak your mind

2 Comments so far

  1. Anonymous on March 12, 2011 3:38 pm

    As one who appreciates your call and preferences for the list, and the chair in particular, it must not go unnoticed that there are those of us who speculate, about others speculation, by quantitatively considering, things; “tested/counted or substantiated to any degree other than emotion or opinion.”

    How are not emotion and opinion interconnected to logics and market action?

    At an earlier date, When asked to leave the list, for offering opinions, I became more interested in the lists evolution. Its standards, methods and practice inclusive of its ego and its emotions.

    Were ever my emotions high? No. Were my list contributions ever the source of positive feedback?.No.

    Did my consideration of the lists contributions to codifying rates of change, about this information system, become a quantitative feedback mechanism?

    This is not a single valued reference space….if it was, its value would be so low, as to not be worth reading.

  2. J.T. on March 14, 2011 7:33 pm

    1) If you are speculating on the speculation of the List of those that test/count based on significance or a quantifiable level of success versus failure then kudos. You get it, but you are cherry picking and focusing on the forest not the trees.

    2) Emotions and opinions thrown out without out a rudder or defense through significance or odds are no more than chance. Sorry, I’m not speculating that way nor do most of the List.

    3) The List is made up of men and women that by far are misconceived about ego’s and emotions. They can though can appear dogmatic and defensive about that which follows a Scientific Method lean. You’ve just not come to this realization. I would suggest that you go read Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” or maybe study up on Objectivism?

    4) If your List contributions weren’t the benefactor of positive feedback then what were your intentions?

    5) You bought into your own self assumptions about this “information systems” and clearly made it out to be something other than the principles espoused.

    6) If the value is not worth reading and the principles behind the List are such that cause you to come back and post anonymously this post then I understand. Your lack of depth and understanding is one that is understood. You are still reading, thus it must be worth reading!


Resources & Links