Forex Mentors - The Best Investment You Can Make? | Page 52 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Forex Mentors/Gurus publish your accounts records 10 replies

Success Stories--Those without Harvard Education, Aweso Mentors, or Genius Intellect. 46 replies

Are commercial trading mentors sucessful? 17 replies

Mentors & Tutors for new traders 39 replies

Attachments: Forex Mentors - The Best Investment You Can Make?
Exit Attachments

Forex Mentors - The Best Investment You Can Make?

  • #1,021
  • Dec 9, 2009 6:07pm Dec 9, 2009 6:07pm
Quoting cobraforex


What you want, daytrader?
OMFG are you kidding? I don't think daytrader's request could be any clearer at this point. If after almost 70 pages you have to ask this question, then you need to get your ass back to the beginning of the thread and start over if there is any hope for you to contribute anything of worth to the topic at hand.

The ONLY thing that daytrader is asking is for credibility of a BUSINESS. He has respectfully stated this over and over and over and over again.

The reason this thread has not hit the bin yet is because daytrader has a point, and I think FF knows that.
All I ask for is a chance to prove that money cannot make me happy.
  • #1,022
  • Dec 9, 2009 6:08pm Dec 9, 2009 6:08pm
Sending an explanation with the signal makes no difference whatsoever - it still is a signal.

regards
daytrading
Enter Signature
  • #1,023
  • Dec 9, 2009 6:10pm Dec 9, 2009 6:10pm
Quoting Marsh
OMFG are you kidding? I don't think daytrader's request could be any clearer at this point. If after almost 70 pages you have to ask this question, then you need to get your ass back to the beginning of the thread and start over if there is any hope for you to contribute anything of worth to the topic at hand.

The ONLY thing that daytrader is asking is for credibility of a BUSINESS....
Thanks, Marsh -

I did not think it was that hard to grasp.

regards
daytrading
Enter Signature
  • #1,024
  • Edited 6:51pm Dec 9, 2009 6:38pm | Edited 6:51pm
You're ill, how in the world you want to teach if you don't do it with real-time trades?

Any child can do it with historical data trades and you will have 100% hit rate.

The bad is that no broker will accept trades based on historical data.

And for Marsh, it's enough what I was reading till now, I'll not get my ass to the first post and read 1000 posts of crap, it's not worth my time.

But yes I'll get my ass to my iggi list and will add someone.

BTW: What about your contribution and credibility in the FX world?


Quoting daytrading
Sending an explanation with the signal makes no difference whatsoever - it still is a signal.

regards
daytrading
  • #1,025
  • Edited 10:02pm Dec 9, 2009 9:17pm | Edited 10:02pm
hi cobra
i didnt want to come back to this thread , not see (smell) the posts of this individual putting him in ignore list was a good idea i suggest you do the same . but your posts bring me back here because i look every day where u have posted and go to read it in what ever thread in this forum .
this man is obviously lying
1- he said a private limited company , anyone can get the audited accounts of a private limited company and himself had a few ltd co(LOL) . this is not true . u can know the board of director names , the paid capital. but not the audited accounts .
2- he has posted a trade taken by jacko with 160 pip profit ! me and many others in this forum know pretty well this is not true . there were no trade taken in this specific date , it means he has falsified a part of what jacko said and he added in the middle of it this story of 160 pips( shame on him )

u have asked this individual what do he wants , i have asked him this a few pages ago .
this guy is a voice , a speaker .because as u can see he talk very well until he gives u nausea. but i believe strongly now that he is just a voice of an agenda . this might give u an idea what this individual wants. and as for his credibility in fx world , well ........( i have heard he has a few indi with colors, he must be making a killing with it )

have a nice day cobra and thanks for all your contributions ( im not coming back here even if i see u are posting here)
regards
samer


Quoting cobraforex
You're ill, how in the world you want to teach if you don't do it with real-time trades?

Any child can do it with historical data trades and you will have 100% hit rate.

The bad is that no broker will accept trades based on historical data.

And for Marsh, it's enough what I was reading till now, I'll not get my ass to the first post and read 1000 posts of crap, it's not worth my time.

But yes I'll get my ass to my iggi list and will add someone.

BTW: What about your contribution and credibility in the FX world?
  • #1,026
  • Dec 9, 2009 9:41pm Dec 9, 2009 9:41pm
Quoting daytrading
I think the topic itself is important enough (and not only here in FF, but anywhere in times of mistrust, scams and fraud), not to be binned before a real resolution takes place.
Let's hope some kind of resolution does take place.

Just to clarify:

1. My original comment was made on Sept 23, a long time before your recent line of input.

2. I didn't say that I thought the thread should be binned, just that I was surprised that it hadn't been.

3. If Jacko's supporters (especially those with less than 100 posts - see rule #3) are allowed to repeatedly promote his service on a thread such as this, but Joe Citizen's supporters aren't allowed to do likewise, then I think the situations where the rules don't apply should be spelled out by the forum administrators.
  • #1,027
  • Edited 1:57pm Dec 10, 2009 12:29am | Edited 1:57pm
Quoting ak4x
..I have no plans to reply to you again under any circumstances.

Add: As an FF member however, I will participate in this thread as I see fit unless or until I get banned by the OP...
Quoting Marsh
...If after almost 70 pages...
Attached Image


70 pages and 1024 posts with the word "Jacko" appearing in either original or quoted text 281 times... from 109 individual posters to date.

65 of those posters have 3 or less posts in this thread, and of the 65 posters, 44 of them only have a single post and then moved on.... smartest move of all.

The top 8 posters starting with Jacko himself and including the OP fxtrader29 who has apparently bugged out account for 648 posts, or almost 63% of the total.

In other words, less than 10% of the posters here account for more than 60% of the total posts.

Of the top 8 posters 551 or a'rd 54% of the current post count has come from 4 members.

Of the 4 top posting members, 323 or a'rd 32% of the total posts on this entire thread have come from 2 posters, daytrading and pipmutt, the two main antagonists here at least as far as Jacko is concerned...

How do you spell A-G-E-N-D-A??

If anybody thinks those two are still discussing the actual Benefit or lack thereof of "Mentors" (the operative word in the thread title) and not a relentless vendetta based on some apparent messianic need to save gullible noobs from Ruin By Jacko, they haven't been staying tuned very well...

Any "on topic" discusion of "Mentors" ended many hundreds of posts ago. In the words of the thread starter himself in mid August two weeks after starting this thread...
Quoting fxtrader29
I have come back to see that this thread has been hijacked and sidetracked.
Had our novice thread starter fxtrader29 known at the time that he could either block obnoxious or unwelcome members from posting here, and/or just request the entire thread be deleted and Binned, I would imagine that most of this Commotion could have been avoided, at least on this thread.

I am not and never have been a Jacko subscriber and have no plans to do so. I do however respect him as a valued member of the FF community and at one time had read most of his posts along with many others long before I ever registered at FF and posted my first time.

The only thing it cost me was my time. I gained considerably from the sum total of Wisdom that resides thruout this Forum, I continue to do so, and have posted as such on many occasions while ALWAYS trying to give credit where credit was due... I don't need to prove my claims that they helped me, nor do I expect them to prove the worth of their stuff.

I'm happy to make that determination for myself...

Assuming this travesty of a thread continues on and this so-called Quest for Truth endures, is anybody asking theirself "What next?"

Or rather "Who's next...?"

If we accept the premise as stated by daytrading that this thread getting moved by Admin to the Commercial Section ((after the OP originally started it in Trading Discussion)) has somehow opened the door within FF to investigations, online demands of proof, and so-called 'verification' of all that sort of thing () when the Disclaimer clearly says "Buyer Beware! etc.." then I would wonder if any of the other Thread owners in the Commercial Section need to be worried about winding up in someones Crosshairs.

There needs to be some serious Rule clarifications sooner rather than later and aggresive moderating of this kind of thing or else methinks it's curtains for FF as we knew it. And I'm not simply talking about "Change". I already did that.

Anyone care to imagine how many members have even read the FF Disclaimer in it's entirety... much less the full text of their own Borker agreement? I'd not be surprised if it's less than the so-called 5% of 'successful traders'.

I'd even venture to say more folks have lost more money thru holding overleveraged trades over a weekend or thru a news event and getting stopped out by a gap for considerably more than they expected becuz they didn't have the faintest clue what "next available price" meant than have been 'burned' by Jacko...

So my question is who is it exactly that you two messiahs are really trying to protect here? That just sounds ludicrous...

For my part, this isn't so much about jacko, daytrading, pipmutt, or ANY of their claims Pro or Con as it is the notion that this whole Commercial Section in it's current form does not in fact seem to be a Step Forward... and this Thread only seems to be proving it.

If the original problem some months back was the so called "Double Standard" and the Commercial Section was created to address it and this kind of thread going into it's 5th month and +1K posts is a consequence of all that, then it may bear asking...

"How exactly (except maybe for Revenue) is this an improvement?"
FUBAR...
  • #1,028
  • Dec 10, 2009 12:31am Dec 10, 2009 12:31am
FWIW, with my previous post, I can't imagine I could have anything else to contribute in this thread.

Look at the stats at the top of the post and make your own decision...

Pretty quick... it'd just be 2 guys in a room talking to theirself.
FUBAR...
  • #1,029
  • Dec 10, 2009 2:17am Dec 10, 2009 2:17am
Quoting samer960
hi cobra
i didnt want to come back to this thread , not see (smell) the posts of this individual putting him in ignore list was a good idea i suggest you do the same . but your posts bring me back here because i...
Now to your post, Samer:

You obviously still have trouble to string a coherent sentence together.

You must be very careful what you are saying - accusing me of lying without proof could have some unintended consequences for you.

Publicly accusing me of falsifying records posted by another member is a serious offence.

The trade took place and I do have proof - so, I will take your posting up with the moderators.


daytrading
Enter Signature
  • #1,030
  • Dec 10, 2009 2:38am Dec 10, 2009 2:38am
Originally Posted by ak4x
..I have no plans to reply to you again under any circumstances.

Add: As an FF member however, I will participate in this thread as I see fit unless or until I get banned by the OP...

FWIW, with my previous post, I can't imagine I could have anything else to contribute in this thread.



What is it, ak, in? or out? or back in?

You must be the one who indefinitely always does what he says.

Posts from members like yourselves are the reason why this thread has become as long as it is - really long, but not saying anything of value.

I have made my points long ago - and because I consider myself to be a polite person, I will for new posters to the thread - who might not have taken the time to read through the length of it - repeat it it as necessary.

regards
daytrading
Enter Signature
  • #1,031
  • Dec 10, 2009 2:54am Dec 10, 2009 2:54am
Quoting hanover
Let's hope some kind of resolution does take place.

Just to clarify:

1. My original comment was made on Sept 23, a long time before your recent line of input.

2. I didn't say that I thought the thread should be binned, just that I was surprised that it hadn't been.

3. If Jacko's supporters (especially those with less than 100 posts - see rule #3) are allowed to repeatedly promote his service on a thread such as this, but Joe Citizen's supporters aren't allowed to do likewise, then I think the situations where the rules don't apply should...
Hanover,

No doubt, I agree.

regards
daytrading
Enter Signature
  • #1,032
  • Dec 10, 2009 3:01am Dec 10, 2009 3:01am
Quoting daytrading
Now to your post, Samer:

You obviously still have trouble to string a coherent sentence together.

You must be very careful what you are saying - accusing me of lying without proof could have some unintended consequences for you.
Hmm...isn't that exactly what you have been doing throughout this thread DT? Accusing Jacko of being a liar (directly or indirectly) because he will not (nor anyone else) give you (again for what reason one should do so is still beyond me) proof to the contrary? It may just be that you may be the one suffering unintended consequences in the end - but you had already thought about that if I recall correctly.

Quoting daytrading
Publicly accusing me of falsifying records posted by another member is a serious offence.

The trade took place and I do have proof - so, I will take your posting up with the moderators.

daytrading
Yes the trade took place - in that you are correct - however Samer is correct in stating it was never mentioned in the private members' blog - perhaps he was unaware he could access (albeit as read only) the Fund's blog as well. I addressed the same issue in my previous post I believe.

Wait a minute.....so now IT IS a trade...and it took place.....it's not a signal anymore...maybe we are getting somewhere after all....

Further to this...I contend that a far more serious offence is posting in public the content of private emails - without the consent of both parties involved - the key word being private. I believe there is an actual law in effect about this issue...but I may be mistaken.


Cheers.
Nihil inimicus quam sibi ipse Marcus Tullius Cicero
  • #1,033
  • Dec 10, 2009 3:12am Dec 10, 2009 3:12am
Quoting ak4x
If anybody thinks those two are still discussing the actual Benefit or lack thereof of "Mentors" (the operative word in the thread title) and not a relentless vendetta based on some apparent messianic need to save gullible noobs from Ruin By Jacko, they haven't been staying tuned very well...
I think you're being naiive if you honestly believe this thread was intended to be anything other than an attempt at promoting one particular vendor.

I made it very clear in my first few posts that discussing an individual vendor in the context of the topic was unlikely to be productive but other parties refused to discuss the topic in general terms, preferring instead to focus on one individual.

The mayhem progressed from there.

If people insist on covert/overt promotion of a business on a public forum then they must be prepared to take some flack and scrutiny from those diligent enough to look past the fluff and ask pertinent questions.

The one person who could have ended this thing has refused to substantiate his claims without offering a valid reason. The reader will draw his own conclusions, taking into account all the material DT and others have posted.

I'm more than happy to discuss the merits, or otherwise, of investing time and money in mentoring (the thread topic), but in more general terms as opposed to vendor specific.
  • #1,034
  • Dec 10, 2009 3:19am Dec 10, 2009 3:19am
Quoting coscorp
Hmm...isn't that exactly what you have been doing throughout this thread DT? Accusing Jacko of being a liar because he will not (nor anyone else) give you (again for what reason one should do so is still beyond me) proof to the contrary? It may just be that you may be the one suffering unintended consquences - but you had already thought about that if I recall correctly.



Yes the trade took place -...
Coscorp,

Voicing suspicions and making plain the possibility of a business not being what it claims to be compared to blunt accusations without proof might be a too subtle difference for you to notice - nevertheless, it is an important distinction to make.

Not knowing or not being aware, is no excuse for those accusations, I am afraid.

I have not posted private e-mails unless expressively agreed by the senders (otherwise I have kept the identities confidential). The e-mails I have obtained from the conversation involving WJ do not contain any sensitive material - only claims he also states on a public blog.

By posting the trade I have not violated any note or order of privacy - none is stated or requests such confidence within.

I do now the laws of copyright and privacy very well - so unless you have to say something else than to defend members whose whole agenda it is to insult other members or disrupt the thread, I suggest you get the facts right prior to your next post.

regards
daytrading
Enter Signature
  • #1,035
  • Edited 6:11am Dec 10, 2009 6:01am | Edited 6:11am
Quoting daytrading
Coscorp,

Voicing suspicions and making plain the possibility of a business not being what it claims to be compared to blunt accusations without proof might be a too subtle difference for you to notice - nevertheless, it is an important distinction to make.
Ergo you are implying and have been implying that Wayne Jackson in your opinion is a liar and possibly a fraud - am I correct in that distinction?

Quoting daytrading
Not knowing or not being aware, is no excuse for those accusations, I am afraid.
The same would apply to you, however you want to define what you have been doing as you, by your own admission do not know and/or or not aware whether what has been said is actually true or not. You have assumed, as inferred by your posts thus far, that it isn't given the lack of people forthcoming to contradict your view with "evidence" or is that difference also too subtle for you to notice?

Quoting daytrading
I have not posted private e-mails unless expressively agreed by the senders (otherwise I have kept the identities confidential). The e-mails I have obtained from the conversation involving WJ do not contain any sensitive material - only claims he also states on a public blog.
You have Wayne Jackson's written agreement and consent to post his private emails to you or anyone else? Whether, according to you, the material they contain is sensitive or not has no bearing whatsoever. So, again do you or have you ever had Wayne Jackson's written consent to post his correspondence with anyone including yourself?

Quoting daytrading
by posting the trade I have not violated any note or order of privacy - none is stated or requests such confidence within.
So, let's see - first they are signals then they are actually trades - seems you are beginning to contradict yourself - so which one is it - signals or trades? Careful now - if it is actually a trade that has been posted then your signal service hooplah goes out the window....yet again.....

Given the above distinction which again, using your own words, may be too subtle for you to notice - the mere fact that you posted information which is reserved to a password protected area to which access is limited solely to those whom Wayne Jackson (or his representatives) has chosen, that you were not and are not privy to said authorization, and further that he has requested many many many times not to post any information pertaining to either that area or any other private area (blog or otherwise) to which he has consented and is consenting access would indicate that you have very much so violated any note or order of privacy.


Quoting daytrading
I do now the laws of copyright and privacy very well - so unless you have to say something else than to defend members whose whole agenda it is to insult other members or disrupt the thread, I suggest you get the facts right prior to your next post.

regards
daytrading

If you say so DT - then I have no reason not to believe you or at least not give you the benefit of the doubt however, given the above I think it can be safely assumed we don't see eye to eye on the subject.

My intention was not to defend but simply to offer another possible view on what may have transpired and, apart from form, which is always relative to each individual, I still believe in the possibility for everyone to express their views until the OP or the Mods decide otherwise.

If only you had actually gotten any "facts" instead of relying solely on innuendo and personal opinions (based solely on the lack of information EDIT: being provided to yourself) and on what one should or should not do according to your personal view on certain matters then we wouldn't even be here.

Cheers
Nihil inimicus quam sibi ipse Marcus Tullius Cicero
  • #1,036
  • Dec 10, 2009 6:04am Dec 10, 2009 6:04am
Coscorp,

stay with the topic - even for you, it cannot be that difficult.

daytrading

P.S. That 'lack of information' as you call it in your last paragraph, is all I need for the argument.
Enter Signature
  • #1,037
  • Dec 10, 2009 6:15am Dec 10, 2009 6:15am
Given the above distinction which again, using your own words, may be too subtle for you to notice - the mere fact that you posted information which is reserved to a password protected area to which access is limited solely to those whom Wayne Jackson (or his representatives) has chosen, that you were not and are not privy to said authorization, and further that he has requested many many many times not to post any information pertaining to either that area or any other private area (blog or otherwise) to which he has consented and is consenting access would indicate that you have very much so violated any note or order of privacy.

What do you know about whether A) I was chosen or not, and B) I have ever been asked not to reveal anything?

So, for you as well as for Samer: before you make open accusations about what I know or how I came to know, get your facts straight.


daytrading
Enter Signature
  • #1,038
  • Dec 10, 2009 6:19am Dec 10, 2009 6:19am
Quoting coscorp
he has requested many many many times not to post any information pertaining to either that area or any other private area
Out of interest why does he have a need to be so secretive?

Transparency in business, especially in his line of business where so many scams and ponzi schemes exist, is paramount I would have thought. Hiding something makes it look like he has something to hide.
  • #1,039
  • Dec 10, 2009 6:31am Dec 10, 2009 6:31am
Quoting daytrading
[color="Blue"]Given the above distinction which again, using your own words, may be too subtle for you to notice - the mere fact that you posted information which is reserved to a password protected area to which access is limited solely to those whom Wayne Jackson (or his representatives) has chosen, that you were not and are not privy to said authorization, and further that he has requested many many many times not to post any information pertaining to either that area or any other private area (blog or otherwise) to which he has consented and...
LOL - setting aside who has been making open accusations albeit under various guises up to this point - the issue in this case would seem to be:

A) Were you? If so (though IF memory serves me you had stated at one point that you had never been a member of Jackos' private group) then you have still violated Waynes' repeated requests for confidentiality and he has made that request in writing more than once in the members' blog. If you were not then please refer to my previous post.

B) If you have - the next question is, by whom? Wayne Jackson?
Nihil inimicus quam sibi ipse Marcus Tullius Cicero
  • #1,040
  • Edited 7:30am Dec 10, 2009 7:17am | Edited 7:30am
Coscorp,

you really do not comprehend that I am asking a legitimate question while you are simply trying with all your limited abilities to divert from what is a normal enquiry - and I am not a business which is subject to the questions.

Ok,

for all future reference (and specifically for people who have not yet understood what my points are):

A commercial section has been put in place for the sole purpose of keeping businesses out of the main section.

Forex Factory states that it has no affiliation with these businesses/pay-for services.

It is also stated that the promotion of such services has to be restricted to the commercial section and that certain types of services are banned (signal services, marketing, etc.).

This thread has appeared in the 'trading discussion' section of the forum.

In the very beginning, blatant promotion of a specific service has taken place.

In these post, claims have been made. Claims of substantial profits and substantial value.

Further claims have been made by the business and its owner. Again, very specific substantial claims which are said to be taken serious because of what ?

Without running to the moderators, I hoped to get an answer to the very legitimate enquiry about proof of those claims made by a business here in a thread as well as on a public blog.

The business has on several instances (publicly and in private) refused to show any evidence relating to the claims it made (more specifically to the question regarding trades that have been posted by the business through the use of SMS text messaging for which subscribers have to pay a fee of $700 p.a.), and which constitutes as such a 'banned' product.

A myriad of absolutely irrelevant questions have been posted (like the fact that $700 p.a. is a relative small amount, and that it is up to each individual to carry out any due diligence on a business).

Well, I am an individual and it makes no difference who I am - so, I attempted to carry out a due diligence process with the same results. No evidence whatsoever that remotely would substantiate any of the claims made by the business.

I have done this in a public thread and contrary to many accusations my agenda here is not hidden in any way.

I have been called a liar, ill, been accused of falsifying other members statements, references to my nationality have been made, vulgar comments about me have been made, I have been further accused of having a fixation with an individual and some members are repeatedly trying to discredit efforts to find out the answer to simple questions.

Everything I have stated in support of my questions is true and I have no reason to lie about anything - after all, I am not selling anything, I am not making unsubstantiated claims in order to increase my client base and I am not having any personal gain from all this - except one thing:

To have my suspicions confirmed or refuted - which seems rather impossible.

Whether the moderators on the basis of this thread deem it necessary to take action in either direction is not up to me, although it would be extremely interesting to hear the opinions.

regards
daytrading
Enter Signature
1 trader viewing now