Commenter Tom (blog reader and long time NFTRH subscriber) notes that I misrepresented Richard Russell's stance which is apparently now "please be out of all common stocks with the exception of mining shares" (as of Jan. 9), replacing "INSTRUCTIONS: Be out of ALL stocks including mining stocks if you've not done so already", which was published at 321.gold on Dec. 12.
If readers have detected that I have a 'thing' for Russell, you are very correct. That is because everything I believe in leads to the idea that a responsible writer does not tell people what to do as if they are unthinking sycophantic robots. At least that is not who I want to be writing to.
As for misrepresenting Richard Russell, Tom? Please, it is quite the opposite. I'll detail the problem for the blog so that maybe it will make a bit of sense as to why I get this way when RR does one of his high profile herd management routines and comes off like the god of all markets.
I wrote this on September 30, 2004. It was probably among the first 3 or 4 things I had ever written publicly about the financial markets. Just a newbie schmo writing for the sake of informing the public as opposed to any kind of commercial motive at that point (it was 4 years prior to NFTRH launch).
The prominent newsletter writer then reprinted the article (in or around the date noted above) in its entirety in his Dow Theory Letters. RR sub's can comb the archives from back then, if they are still on record and available. Hey, what a great thing; Richard Russell liked my article enough to reprint!
Problem being, he reprinted it with some of his own words along the lines of 'Dow Theory Letters has the smartest subscribers in the world and here's an example...' Richard Russell MISREPRESENTED my content to his subscribers, gave NO CREDIT to my website (the original source) or whatever re-publishing website he copied it from (without my permission). Also, I have never subscribed to his service.
He could have given a newbie writer a boost and a helping hand. Instead he took my content without permission and presented it to his flock as being from one of them. Are you kidding me? I was actually excited about this and contacted him to let him know that I was actually not a subscriber, but an independent writer at biiwii.com.
He never answered my mail and I have had this 'thing' for him ever since. It has been in my craw for seven years. Now we can move on, probably a few blog readers lighter.
http://www.biiwii.blogspot.com
http://www.biiwii.com
If readers have detected that I have a 'thing' for Russell, you are very correct. That is because everything I believe in leads to the idea that a responsible writer does not tell people what to do as if they are unthinking sycophantic robots. At least that is not who I want to be writing to.
As for misrepresenting Richard Russell, Tom? Please, it is quite the opposite. I'll detail the problem for the blog so that maybe it will make a bit of sense as to why I get this way when RR does one of his high profile herd management routines and comes off like the god of all markets.
I wrote this on September 30, 2004. It was probably among the first 3 or 4 things I had ever written publicly about the financial markets. Just a newbie schmo writing for the sake of informing the public as opposed to any kind of commercial motive at that point (it was 4 years prior to NFTRH launch).
The prominent newsletter writer then reprinted the article (in or around the date noted above) in its entirety in his Dow Theory Letters. RR sub's can comb the archives from back then, if they are still on record and available. Hey, what a great thing; Richard Russell liked my article enough to reprint!
Problem being, he reprinted it with some of his own words along the lines of 'Dow Theory Letters has the smartest subscribers in the world and here's an example...' Richard Russell MISREPRESENTED my content to his subscribers, gave NO CREDIT to my website (the original source) or whatever re-publishing website he copied it from (without my permission). Also, I have never subscribed to his service.
He could have given a newbie writer a boost and a helping hand. Instead he took my content without permission and presented it to his flock as being from one of them. Are you kidding me? I was actually excited about this and contacted him to let him know that I was actually not a subscriber, but an independent writer at biiwii.com.
He never answered my mail and I have had this 'thing' for him ever since. It has been in my craw for seven years. Now we can move on, probably a few blog readers lighter.
http://www.biiwii.blogspot.com
http://www.biiwii.com
He sounds like a bit of an arse.
ReplyDeleteHappy New Year, and I wouldn't fret about losing a few blog readers, I'm sure they appreciate your honesty, as I do.
"prominent writer"? C'mon Gary, this guy has not made a good call since 1982. I have read this guy's work since the mid seventies and I can tell you I have never been impressed. It defies logic how he can have so many subscribers with the kind of calls he makes. I rank him and Prechter along the same lines; I just read their stuff when I am bored or instead of reading the cereal box.
ReplyDelete