DislikedSuch cynicism forexfun! First of all I have dispararged no one.Ignored
QuoteDislikedAs for an apology, wtf? You want me to apologize for informing the trading public about the risks of trading with an undercapitalized firm?
QuoteDislikedFurthermore, I have little sympathy for firms that continue to insist being undercapitalized is no big deal
i would bet, if contacted, not many of those companies would say that being undercapitalized is "no big deal". they'd say they're meeting current requirements. some of them are no doubt crooks. some of them though might not be, but you keep lumping them together (making the ones that will be fine seem guilty by association in your list) and you'll make no apologies later for throwing them into the same lot. It's like saying "This group of people in Rosemont Apartments are a bunch of thievess. Three of them were convicted for robbery, and because the rest of them live in the same neighborhood, they must ALL be thieves, because otherwise, they'd move out of Rosemont Apartments." You're making them seem like they're guilty by lumping them in one group and then saying "Well, I'll just remove them from the list later". It doesn't matter at that point, you've already smeared their names with the lumping. If they meet any new requirements later, you insist that you don't have to apologize for anything - never mind that if anyone read this thread, they'd think the sky was falling on all of those companies.
i can't make it any clearer.
QuoteDislikedThe burden of proof is on the dead forex firms walking.
Burden of proof of what? THEY MEET THE CURRENT REQUIREMENT. If the requirement gets passed, I have no doubt some of them can make the new requirement, but that doesn't mean they have to put up now.
i admire your zeal for trying to protect consumers, but as i just read on another thread, it's your tone that needs work.