On 2/7/25 6:41 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 08:16:08 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/6/25 7:08 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 09:57:55 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/5/25 7:15 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 12:56:27 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/4/25 7:02 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
-hh wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
On 2/3/25 4:49 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
-hh wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
On 2/3/25 12:42 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Bradley K. Sherman wrote this post while blinking in Morse >>>>>>>>>>>> code:
Helluva job, Mr. President!
<snip>
Question is which Media outlets will report on the USA's >>>>>>>>>>> obligation.
Exactly. American main media generally sane-washes Trump. And >>>>>>>>>> they are
generally quite incomplete in their research. They won't
report the gun export
information.
Precisely.
They don't report that Musk's minions are accessing classified >>>>>>>>>> data without
clearance. They don't report that Musk's takeover is fucking >>>>>>>>>> ILLEGAL.
The mainsteam media is an ass.
I'm worried for those who are going to get hurt bad by it. The >>>>>>>>> manager
that I replaced at work ~4 years ago told me literally this
morning that
instead of retiring this spring, he's accept "the offer" to get >>>>>>>>> an extra
few months of pay. I noted VERA/VSIP reg's & wished him best >>>>>>>>> of luck.
Amazed that he's gambling his ~$75K/yr pension for so
relatively little.
I have a friend in the VA chewing on that deal. He was planning >>>>>>>> on retiring
about now, but....
I hope he realizes it is a scam promoted by Muskrat, who pulled >>>>>>>> the same trick
on the Twitter employees he laid off when he took over.
Reportedly, there's another (yet again) revised version out today >>>>>>> which
has added a whole bunch of legal fine print. Basically, lots of >>>>>>> bailout
conditions where they won't have to pay the employee.
"Reporedly"??
Laughter.
Go check the overnight updates yourself.
It's your claim, you support it.
I won't do your homework.
Here's a start:
<https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce/2025/02/union-lawsuit-
seeks-to-block-deferred-resignation-program/>
You're claiming something about a "revised version...which has added a
whole bunch of legal fine print"
Nothing about it at your citation.
Quit dodging. Can you support this claim or not?
Here's one letter that's currently on the OPM website. Its a January version, not the February versions which went out this week:
<https://www.opm.gov/fork>
But in the meantime, you claimed that big drops like Monday's are very
routine in the Stock Market, and asked to substantiate that claim.
Actually you didn't ask but just in recent history there have been
changes up and down and 600 or more points.
https://www.cnbctv18.com/market/wall-street-slips-as-2024-nears-close-
dow-jones-drops-over-600-points-19532067.htm
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/26/investing/stocks-rate-cuts-inflation-
fed/index.html
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2024-09-03/stock-market-today-
wall-street-tumbles-on-worries-about-the-economy-and-dow-drops-more-
than-600
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/markets/dow-slides-500-points-sp-500-
retreats-record-nasdaq-hits-new-heights-rcna153781
Now you're going to ramble about something that makes no sense.
So count up the occurrences and show us how routine these magnitudes of
drops actually are.
Have you done that yet?
ecause if not, you're knowingly being a hypocrite. Again.
Laughter. Still waiting for you to support your FIRST claim yet you
demand I answer your questions.
Already done.
This morning's is saying that
LOGIN.GOV has been compromised & to not log in.
Citation?
Nothing in the news. How odd.
Do you not know how to look, or did you not bother to look any further
than Fox News?
<https://idtechwire.com/social-security-makes-login-gov-mandatory-
for-online-users/>
Nothing about a compromised log in as you claimed.
Of course not, because that's a page from last summer that documents
that Social Security recipients now have to have a LOGIN.GOV account.
If I hadn't provided that, you would have tried to scream that SS wasn't
at risk from this compromised report.
<https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/elon-musks-doge-team-now-has-access-
to-us-governments-payments-system-7614722>
Same.
Oh, so you don't believe that Social Security checks are a Federal payment?
Keep on struggling.
-hh
On 2/7/25 6:50 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 08:22:45 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/6/25 7:19 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 09:52:48 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/5/25 7:10 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 13:20:09 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/4/25 7:22 AM, NoBody wrote:
On 3 Feb 2025 15:07:44 -0000, [email protected] (Bradley K. Sherman) >>>>>>>> wrote:
Helluva job, Mr. President!
--bks
Wow the Dow dropped to 44.4.
<eyeroll>
Well, it was at a high of 45,015 so that is bit of a slide ...
600 points to 44.4 is hardly a "plunge". The markets do this
constantly.
Care to document your claim that this magnitude of a swing is such a >>>>> "oh, no big deal" commonplace occurrence?
This is not what I said, was it?
Yes, it was: "the markets do this consistently."
I did not say that. Be accurate when you quote me please.
The full quote (which is still also included ~7 lines above):
"600 points to 44.4 is hardly a "plunge". The markets do this
constantly."
So your complaint is a Grammar Nazi one in that I changed the "The" to
"the" because it was preceded with a colon instead of a period. Right?
I've
already provided you multiple examples of it happening in just the
last year.
Not in this thread you haven't: the only Points and Dates you've posted
was:
"Laughter. 800 points in a day in 2020 with the market at 21K is more >significant than 600 in 2024 with the market at 44K."
Free clue: last year was not 2020.
Granted, 2024 also had some days with a big High-Low swing in volatility >which exceeded the 715.48 swing of last Monday (3 Feb 25), but how many
were there actually? Once per week? More?
Plus how many/few were predicated on drops instead of booms with the
market closing much higher from its open?
Do your damn homework before making your claims.
You sound like my weather app that says "temperatures to plunge" every >>>> day when it changes by 5 degrees.
Trying to weasel out of your claim, we see. No, the analogy to outdoor
temperature changes would need to exceed �3?, so a ~50 degree change.
I gave you an analogy -- and your answer makes zero sense.
Your analogy attempt mislead on variance magnitude. Deliberately.
Because the DJIA's 600 point swing was was getting close to cracking the >>>>> list of the Top 20 largest intraday point swings:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_daily_changes_in_the_Dow_Jones_Industrial_Average#Largest_intraday_point_changes>
Laughter. 800 points in a day in 2020 with the market at 21K is more
significant than 600 in 2024 with the market at 44K.
Trying to change the subject!
You've got a real problem being intellectually honest don't you? I'm
remembering why you got dropped in the kill file.
Yes: because you lose, so you hide them to give you refuge.
...
Oh and look, the market futures have the Dow at 45K today.
So much for your original "point".
On 2/7/25 6:41 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 08:16:08 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/6/25 7:08 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 09:57:55 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/5/25 7:15 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 12:56:27 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/4/25 7:02 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
-hh wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
On 2/3/25 4:49 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
-hh wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
On 2/3/25 12:42 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Bradley K. Sherman wrote this post while blinking in Morse code: >>>>>>>>>>>>
Helluva job, Mr. President!
<snip>
Question is which Media outlets will report on the USA's obligation.
Exactly. American main media generally sane-washes Trump. And they are
generally quite incomplete in their research. They won't report the gun export
information.
Precisely.
They don't report that Musk's minions are accessing classified data without
clearance. They don't report that Musk's takeover is fucking ILLEGAL.
The mainsteam media is an ass.
I'm worried for those who are going to get hurt bad by it. The manager
that I replaced at work ~4 years ago told me literally this morning that
instead of retiring this spring, he's accept "the offer" to get an extra
few months of pay. I noted VERA/VSIP reg's & wished him best of luck.
Amazed that he's gambling his ~$75K/yr pension for so relatively little.
I have a friend in the VA chewing on that deal. He was planning on retiring
about now, but....
I hope he realizes it is a scam promoted by Muskrat, who pulled the same trick
on the Twitter employees he laid off when he took over.
Reportedly, there's another (yet again) revised version out today which >>>>>>> has added a whole bunch of legal fine print. Basically, lots of bailout
conditions where they won't have to pay the employee.
"Reporedly"??
Laughter.
Go check the overnight updates yourself.
It's your claim, you support it.
I won't do your homework.
Here's a start:
<https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce/2025/02/union-lawsuit-seeks-to-block-deferred-resignation-program/>
You're claiming something about a "revised version...which has added a
whole bunch of legal fine print"
Nothing about it at your citation.
Quit dodging. Can you support this claim or not?
Here's one letter that's currently on the OPM website. Its a January >version, not the February versions which went out this week:
<https://www.opm.gov/fork>
But in the meantime, you claimed that big drops like Monday's are very
routine in the Stock Market, and asked to substantiate that claim.
Actually you didn't ask but just in recent history there have been
changes up and down and 600 or more points.
https://www.cnbctv18.com/market/wall-street-slips-as-2024-nears-close-dow-jones-drops-over-600-points-19532067.htm
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/26/investing/stocks-rate-cuts-inflation-fed/index.html
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2024-09-03/stock-market-today-wall-street-tumbles-on-worries-about-the-economy-and-dow-drops-more-than-600
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/markets/dow-slides-500-points-sp-500-retreats-record-nasdaq-hits-new-heights-rcna153781
Now you're going to ramble about something that makes no sense.
So count up the occurrences and show us how routine these magnitudes of
drops actually are.
Have you done that yet?
ecause if not, you're knowingly being a hypocrite. Again.
Laughter. Still waiting for you to support your FIRST claim yet you
demand I answer your questions.
Already done.
This morning's is saying that
LOGIN.GOV has been compromised & to not log in.
Citation?
Nothing in the news. How odd.
Do you not know how to look, or did you not bother to look any further
than Fox News?
<https://idtechwire.com/social-security-makes-login-gov-mandatory-for-online-users/>
Nothing about a compromised log in as you claimed.
Of course not, because that's a page from last summer that documents
that Social Security recipients now have to have a LOGIN.GOV account.
If I hadn't provided that, you would have tried to scream that SS wasn't
at risk from this compromised report.
<https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/elon-musks-doge-team-now-has-access-to-us-governments-payments-system-7614722>
Same.
Oh, so you don't believe that Social Security checks are a Federal
payment?
Keep on struggling.
-hh
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 08:21:01 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/7/25 6:41 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 08:16:08 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/6/25 7:08 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 09:57:55 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/5/25 7:15 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 12:56:27 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/4/25 7:02 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
-hh wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
On 2/3/25 4:49 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
-hh wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
On 2/3/25 12:42 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Bradley K. Sherman wrote this post while blinking in Morse code: >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Helluva job, Mr. President!
<snip>
Question is which Media outlets will report on the USA's obligation.
Exactly. American main media generally sane-washes Trump. And they are
generally quite incomplete in their research. They won't report the gun export
information.
Precisely.
They don't report that Musk's minions are accessing classified data without
clearance. They don't report that Musk's takeover is fucking ILLEGAL.
The mainsteam media is an ass.
I'm worried for those who are going to get hurt bad by it. The manager
that I replaced at work ~4 years ago told me literally this morning that
instead of retiring this spring, he's accept "the offer" to get an extra
few months of pay. I noted VERA/VSIP reg's & wished him best of luck.
Amazed that he's gambling his ~$75K/yr pension for so relatively little.
I have a friend in the VA chewing on that deal. He was planning on retiring
about now, but....
I hope he realizes it is a scam promoted by Muskrat, who pulled the same trick
on the Twitter employees he laid off when he took over.
Reportedly, there's another (yet again) revised version out today which
has added a whole bunch of legal fine print. Basically, lots of bailout
conditions where they won't have to pay the employee.
"Reporedly"??
Laughter.
Go check the overnight updates yourself.
It's your claim, you support it.
I won't do your homework.
Here's a start:
<https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce/2025/02/union-lawsuit-seeks-to-block-deferred-resignation-program/>
You're claiming something about a "revised version...which has added a
whole bunch of legal fine print"
Nothing about it at your citation.
Quit dodging. Can you support this claim or not?
Here's one letter that's currently on the OPM website. Its a January
version, not the February versions which went out this week:
<https://www.opm.gov/fork>
Where's the letter that contains the addition of "fine legal print" as
you claimed.
Hint: you don't get away with nonsense when communicating with me.
But in the meantime, you claimed that big drops like Monday's are very >>>> routine in the Stock Market, and asked to substantiate that claim.
Actually you didn't ask but just in recent history there have been
changes up and down and 600 or more points.
https://www.cnbctv18.com/market/wall-street-slips-as-2024-nears-close-dow-jones-drops-over-600-points-19532067.htm
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/26/investing/stocks-rate-cuts-inflation-fed/index.html
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2024-09-03/stock-market-today-wall-street-tumbles-on-worries-about-the-economy-and-dow-drops-more-than-600
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/markets/dow-slides-500-points-sp-500-retreats-record-nasdaq-hits-new-heights-rcna153781
Now you're going to ramble about something that makes no sense.
So count up the occurrences and show us how routine these magnitudes of
drops actually are.
Have you done that yet?
ecause if not, you're knowingly being a hypocrite. Again.
Laughter. Still waiting for you to support your FIRST claim yet you
demand I answer your questions.
Already done.
Laughter....
You're delusional.
This morning's is saying that
LOGIN.GOV has been compromised & to not log in.
Citation?
Nothing in the news. How odd.
Do you not know how to look, or did you not bother to look any further >>>> than Fox News?
<https://idtechwire.com/social-security-makes-login-gov-mandatory-for-online-users/>
Nothing about a compromised log in as you claimed.
Of course not, because that's a page from last summer that documents
that Social Security recipients now have to have a LOGIN.GOV account.
If I hadn't provided that, you would have tried to scream that SS wasn't
at risk from this compromised report.
Dude: Last time.
Provide a citation to your claim that the log in was compromised as
you claimed or admit you lied about it.
<https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/elon-musks-doge-team-now-has-access-to-us-governments-payments-system-7614722>
Same.
Oh, so you don't believe that Social Security checks are a Federal
payment?
Keep on struggling.
You made a specific claim and have not supported it.
You're the one drowning here.
I'm standing on the shore watching, pointing and laughing.
-hh
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 08:04:37 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/7/25 6:50 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 08:22:45 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/6/25 7:19 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 09:52:48 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/5/25 7:10 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 13:20:09 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/4/25 7:22 AM, NoBody wrote:
On 3 Feb 2025 15:07:44 -0000, [email protected] (Bradley K. Sherman) >>>>>>>>> wrote:
Helluva job, Mr. President!
--bks
Wow the Dow dropped to 44.4.
<eyeroll>
Well, it was at a high of 45,015 so that is bit of a slide ... >>>>>>>>
600 points to 44.4 is hardly a "plunge". The markets do this
constantly.
Care to document your claim that this magnitude of a swing is such a >>>>>> "oh, no big deal" commonplace occurrence?
This is not what I said, was it?
Yes, it was: "the markets do this consistently."
I did not say that. Be accurate when you quote me please.
The full quote (which is still also included ~7 lines above):
"600 points to 44.4 is hardly a "plunge". The markets do this
constantly."
Here's what you said oh clueless one:
"Yes, it was: "the markets do this consistently.""
Do you see how that's not the same thing?
So your complaint is a Grammar Nazi one in that I changed the "The" to
"the" because it was preceded with a colon instead of a period. Right?
No you idiot. Read it over and over again until you see your huge
misquote. No grammar involved whatsoever.
I've
already provided you multiple examples of it happening in just the
last year.
Not in this thread you haven't: the only Points and Dates you've posted
was:
Oh good grief..
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/26/investing/stocks-rate-cuts-inflation-fed/index.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/01/stock-market-today-live-updates.html
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/23/investing/dow-falls-waiting-fed-rate-cut/index.html
https://nypost.com/2024/11/21/business/dow-jumps-over-600-points-nasdaq-rebounds-in-volatile-wall-street-trading/
https://www.marketwatch.com/livecoverage/stock-market-today-dow-futures-dip-from-record-high
https://www.fxstreet.com/news/dow-jones-industrial-average-tumbles-380-points-on-thursday-as-rate-cut-hopes-deflate-202405231724
I can keep going if you'd like but the markets are volatile and
changes this large are rather common in modern times.
"Laughter. 800 points in a day in 2020 with the market at 21K is more
significant than 600 in 2024 with the market at 44K."
Free clue: last year was not 2020.
You claimed it doesn't happen. Guess what, it does. See above.
Granted, 2024 also had some days with a big High-Low swing in volatility
which exceeded the 715.48 swing of last Monday (3 Feb 25), but how many
were there actually? Once per week? More?
Look at you trying to make me quantity a word.
It happens. It's not unusual.
Get over it.
Plus how many/few were predicated on drops instead of booms with the
market closing much higher from its open?
Do your damn homework before making your claims.
Laughter about a guy who can't even quote me correctly.
You sound like my weather app that says "temperatures to plunge" every >>>>> day when it changes by 5 degrees.
Trying to weasel out of your claim, we see. No, the analogy to outdoor >>>> temperature changes would need to exceed ±3?, so a ~50 degree change. >>>>
I gave you an analogy -- and your answer makes zero sense.
Your analogy attempt mislead on variance magnitude. Deliberately.
Run, run, run.
Because the DJIA's 600 point swing was was getting close to cracking the >>>>>> list of the Top 20 largest intraday point swings:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_daily_changes_in_the_Dow_Jones_Industrial_Average#Largest_intraday_point_changes>
Laughter. 800 points in a day in 2020 with the market at 21K is more >>>>> significant than 600 in 2024 with the market at 44K.
Trying to change the subject!
You've got a real problem being intellectually honest don't you? I'm
remembering why you got dropped in the kill file.
Yes: because you lose, so you hide them to give you refuge.
Laughter. So few people go in my killfile. Only people who declare
victory without facts and refue to address what's put in front of
them.
Oh and those who will lie about what I've posted too.
Last chance.
On 2/8/25 9:41 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 08:21:01 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/7/25 6:41 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 08:16:08 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/6/25 7:08 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 09:57:55 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/5/25 7:15 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 12:56:27 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/4/25 7:02 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
-hh wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
On 2/3/25 4:49 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
-hh wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
On 2/3/25 12:42 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Bradley K. Sherman wrote this post while blinking in Morse code: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Helluva job, Mr. President!
<snip>
Question is which Media outlets will report on the USA's obligation.
Exactly. American main media generally sane-washes Trump. And they are
generally quite incomplete in their research. They won't report the gun export
information.
Precisely.
They don't report that Musk's minions are accessing classified data without
clearance. They don't report that Musk's takeover is fucking ILLEGAL.
The mainsteam media is an ass.
I'm worried for those who are going to get hurt bad by it. The manager
that I replaced at work ~4 years ago told me literally this morning that
instead of retiring this spring, he's accept "the offer" to get an extra
few months of pay. I noted VERA/VSIP reg's & wished him best of luck.
Amazed that he's gambling his ~$75K/yr pension for so relatively little.
I have a friend in the VA chewing on that deal. He was planning on retiring
about now, but....
I hope he realizes it is a scam promoted by Muskrat, who pulled the same trick
on the Twitter employees he laid off when he took over.
Reportedly, there's another (yet again) revised version out today which
has added a whole bunch of legal fine print. Basically, lots of bailout
conditions where they won't have to pay the employee.
"Reporedly"??
Laughter.
Go check the overnight updates yourself.
It's your claim, you support it.
I won't do your homework.
Here's a start:
<https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce/2025/02/union-lawsuit-seeks-to-block-deferred-resignation-program/>
You're claiming something about a "revised version...which has added a >>>> whole bunch of legal fine print"
Nothing about it at your citation.
Quit dodging. Can you support this claim or not?
Here's one letter that's currently on the OPM website. Its a January
version, not the February versions which went out this week:
<https://www.opm.gov/fork>
Where's the letter that contains the addition of "fine legal print" as
you claimed.
Its in my other 2/7/25 reply (14:30), which you avoided responding to.
Hint: you don't get away with nonsense when communicating with me.
But in the meantime, you claimed that big drops like Monday's are very >>>>> routine in the Stock Market, and asked to substantiate that claim.
Actually you didn't ask but just in recent history there have been
changes up and down and 600 or more points.
https://www.cnbctv18.com/market/wall-street-slips-as-2024-nears-close-dow-jones-drops-over-600-points-19532067.htm
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/26/investing/stocks-rate-cuts-inflation-fed/index.html
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2024-09-03/stock-market-today-wall-street-tumbles-on-worries-about-the-economy-and-dow-drops-more-than-600
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/markets/dow-slides-500-points-sp-500-retreats-record-nasdaq-hits-new-heights-rcna153781
Now you're going to ramble about something that makes no sense.
So count up the occurrences and show us how routine these magnitudes of
drops actually are.
Have you done that yet?
ecause if not, you're knowingly being a hypocrite. Again.
Laughter. Still waiting for you to support your FIRST claim yet you
demand I answer your questions.
Already done.
Laughter....
You're delusional.
This morning's is saying that
LOGIN.GOV has been compromised & to not log in.
Citation?
Nothing in the news. How odd.
Do you not know how to look, or did you not bother to look any further >>>>> than Fox News?
<https://idtechwire.com/social-security-makes-login-gov-mandatory-for-online-users/>
Nothing about a compromised log in as you claimed.
Of course not, because that's a page from last summer that documents
that Social Security recipients now have to have a LOGIN.GOV account.
If I hadn't provided that, you would have tried to scream that SS wasn't >>> at risk from this compromised report.
Dude: Last time.
Provide a citation to your claim that the log in was compromised as
you claimed or admit you lied about it.
Where did I claim specifically that the login was what was compromised?
Quote it, Mr Grammar Nazi.
-hh
<https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/elon-musks-doge-team-now-has-access-to-us-governments-payments-system-7614722>
Same.
Oh, so you don't believe that Social Security checks are a Federal
payment?
Keep on struggling.
You made a specific claim and have not supported it.
You're the one drowning here.
I'm standing on the shore watching, pointing and laughing.
-hh
On 2/8/25 9:37 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 08:04:37 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/7/25 6:50 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 08:22:45 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/6/25 7:19 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 09:52:48 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/5/25 7:10 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 13:20:09 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/4/25 7:22 AM, NoBody wrote:
On 3 Feb 2025 15:07:44 -0000, [email protected] (Bradley K. Sherman) >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
Helluva job, Mr. President!
--bks
Wow the Dow dropped to 44.4.
<eyeroll>
Well, it was at a high of 45,015 so that is bit of a slide ... >>>>>>>>>
600 points to 44.4 is hardly a "plunge". The markets do this
constantly.
Care to document your claim that this magnitude of a swing is such a >>>>>>> "oh, no big deal" commonplace occurrence?
This is not what I said, was it?
Yes, it was: "the markets do this consistently."
I did not say that. Be accurate when you quote me please.
The full quote (which is still also included ~7 lines above):
"600 points to 44.4 is hardly a "plunge". The markets do this
constantly."
Here's what you said oh clueless one:
"Yes, it was: "the markets do this consistently.""
Do you see how that's not the same thing?
So your complaint is a Grammar Nazi one in that I changed the "The" to
"the" because it was preceded with a colon instead of a period. Right?
No you idiot. Read it over and over again until you see your huge
misquote. No grammar involved whatsoever.
Your Grammar Nazi is trying to claim there's a huge difference between:
"The markets do this consistently."
and
"the markets do this consistently."
If your complaint is that the quote didn't include the prior sentence
("600 points to 44.4 is hardly a "plunge"."), then you're trying to
complain that the context of "this" wasn't already clear. So I'll
revise accordingly to as follows:
"The markets do [have 600+ point plunges] consistently."
I've
already provided you multiple examples of it happening in just the
last year.
Not in this thread you haven't: the only Points and Dates you've posted >>> was:
Oh good grief..
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/26/investing/stocks-rate-cuts-inflation-fed/index.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/01/stock-market-today-live-updates.html
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/23/investing/dow-falls-waiting-fed-rate-cut/index.html
https://nypost.com/2024/11/21/business/dow-jumps-over-600-points-nasdaq-rebounds-in-volatile-wall-street-trading/
https://www.marketwatch.com/livecoverage/stock-market-today-dow-futures-dip-from-record-high
https://www.fxstreet.com/news/dow-jones-industrial-average-tumbles-380-points-on-thursday-as-rate-cut-hopes-deflate-202405231724
I can keep going if you'd like but the markets are volatile and
changes this large are rather common in modern times.
Just not as common as you've tried to suggest, particularly with your 5 >degree temperature change analogy.
"Laughter. 800 points in a day in 2020 with the market at 21K is more
significant than 600 in 2024 with the market at 44K."
Free clue: last year was not 2020.
You claimed it doesn't happen. Guess what, it does. See above.
Granted, 2024 also had some days with a big High-Low swing in volatility >>> which exceeded the 715.48 swing of last Monday (3 Feb 25), but how many
were there actually? Once per week? More?
Look at you trying to make me quantity a word.
Yup, because "consistently" is conveniently vague.
It happens. It's not unusual.
Now quantify "not unusual".
How much more frequent is "not unusual" encountered versus "rare"?
Get over it.
Dodge harder.
Plus how many/few were predicated on drops instead of booms with the
market closing much higher from its open?
Do your damn homework before making your claims.
Laughter about a guy who can't even quote me correctly.
Grammar Nazi who's crying over one non-capitalized letter.
You sound like my weather app that says "temperatures to plunge" every >>>>>> day when it changes by 5 degrees.
Trying to weasel out of your claim, we see. No, the analogy to outdoor >>>>> temperature changes would need to exceed �3?, so a ~50 degree change. >>>>>
I gave you an analogy -- and your answer makes zero sense.
Your analogy attempt mislead on variance magnitude. Deliberately.
Run, run, run.
No, just pointing out your deliberate attempt to deceive & CYA, because
a daily temperature high minus low typically occurs *daily* in the USA,
but we don't have 600+ point swings daily in the Stock Market.
On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 13:52:37 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/8/25 9:41 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 08:21:01 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/7/25 6:41 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 08:16:08 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/6/25 7:08 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 09:57:55 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/5/25 7:15 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 12:56:27 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/4/25 7:02 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
-hh wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
On 2/3/25 4:49 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
-hh wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
On 2/3/25 12:42 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Bradley K. Sherman wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
Helluva job, Mr. President!
<snip>
Question is which Media outlets will report on the USA's obligation.
Exactly. American main media generally sane-washes Trump. And they are
generally quite incomplete in their research. They won't report the gun export
information.
Precisely.
They don't report that Musk's minions are accessing classified data without
clearance. They don't report that Musk's takeover is fucking ILLEGAL.
The mainsteam media is an ass.
I'm worried for those who are going to get hurt bad by it. The manager
that I replaced at work ~4 years ago told me literally this morning that
instead of retiring this spring, he's accept "the offer" to get an extra
few months of pay. I noted VERA/VSIP reg's & wished him best of luck.
Amazed that he's gambling his ~$75K/yr pension for so relatively little.
I have a friend in the VA chewing on that deal. He was planning on retiring
about now, but....
I hope he realizes it is a scam promoted by Muskrat, who pulled the same trick
on the Twitter employees he laid off when he took over.
Reportedly, there's another (yet again) revised version out today which
has added a whole bunch of legal fine print. Basically, lots of bailout
conditions where they won't have to pay the employee.
"Reporedly"??
Laughter.
Go check the overnight updates yourself.
It's your claim, you support it.
I won't do your homework.
Here's a start:
<https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce/2025/02/union-lawsuit-seeks-to-block-deferred-resignation-program/>
You're claiming something about a "revised version...which has added a >>>>> whole bunch of legal fine print"
Nothing about it at your citation.
Quit dodging. Can you support this claim or not?
Here's one letter that's currently on the OPM website. Its a January
version, not the February versions which went out this week:
<https://www.opm.gov/fork>
Where's the letter that contains the addition of "fine legal print" as
you claimed.
Its in my other 2/7/25 reply (14:30), which you avoided responding to.
Now you're typing in circles in an attempt to avoid admitted your lie.
You don't get to do that.
Cite RIGHT here the citation and the added "fine legal print". (Ensure
that you include a version of the document without the "fine legal
print").
Here's one letter that's currently on the OPM website. Its
a January version, not the February versions which went out
this week:
<https://www.opm.gov/fork>
Hint: you don't get away with nonsense when communicating with me.
But it won't stop you from trying I see.
But in the meantime, you claimed that big drops like Monday's are very >>>>>> routine in the Stock Market, and asked to substantiate that claim.
Actually you didn't ask but just in recent history there have been
changes up and down and 600 or more points.
https://www.cnbctv18.com/market/wall-street-slips-as-2024-nears-close-dow-jones-drops-over-600-points-19532067.htm
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/26/investing/stocks-rate-cuts-inflation-fed/index.html
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2024-09-03/stock-market-today-wall-street-tumbles-on-worries-about-the-economy-and-dow-drops-more-than-600
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/markets/dow-slides-500-points-sp-500-retreats-record-nasdaq-hits-new-heights-rcna153781
Now you're going to ramble about something that makes no sense.
So count up the occurrences and show us how routine these magnitudes of >>>> drops actually are.
Have you done that yet?
ecause if not, you're knowingly being a hypocrite. Again.
Laughter. Still waiting for you to support your FIRST claim yet you >>>>> demand I answer your questions.
Already done.
Laughter....
You're delusional.
Silence.
This morning's is saying that
LOGIN.GOV has been compromised & to not log in.
Citation?
Nothing in the news. How odd.
Do you not know how to look, or did you not bother to look any further >>>>>> than Fox News?
<https://idtechwire.com/social-security-makes-login-gov-mandatory-for-online-users/>
Nothing about a compromised log in as you claimed.
Of course not, because that's a page from last summer that documents
that Social Security recipients now have to have a LOGIN.GOV account.
If I hadn't provided that, you would have tried to scream that SS wasn't >>>> at risk from this compromised report.
Dude: Last time.
Provide a citation to your claim that the log in was compromised as
you claimed or admit you lied about it.
Where did I claim specifically that the login was what was compromised?
Quote it, Mr Grammar Nazi.
OMG. You have major difficulties in sentence composition.
On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 13:48:04 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/8/25 9:37 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 08:04:37 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/7/25 6:50 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 08:22:45 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/6/25 7:19 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 09:52:48 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/5/25 7:10 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 13:20:09 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/4/25 7:22 AM, NoBody wrote:
On 3 Feb 2025 15:07:44 -0000, [email protected] (Bradley K. Sherman) >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
Helluva job, Mr. President!
--bks
Wow the Dow dropped to 44.4.
<eyeroll>
Well, it was at a high of 45,015 so that is bit of a slide ... >>>>>>>>>>
600 points to 44.4 is hardly a "plunge". The markets do this >>>>>>>>> constantly.
Care to document your claim that this magnitude of a swing is such a >>>>>>>> "oh, no big deal" commonplace occurrence?
This is not what I said, was it?
Yes, it was: "the markets do this consistently."
I did not say that. Be accurate when you quote me please.
The full quote (which is still also included ~7 lines above):
"600 points to 44.4 is hardly a "plunge". The markets do this
constantly."
Here's what you said oh clueless one:
"Yes, it was: "the markets do this consistently.""
Do you see how that's not the same thing?
Your silence is your admission that you now realize how you lied about
what I said and hope I won't notice.
As I told you, you don't get away with nonsense like that with me.
You lied.
Own it.
So your complaint is a Grammar Nazi one in that I changed the "The" to >>>> "the" because it was preceded with a colon instead of a period. Right? >>>>
No you idiot. Read it over and over again until you see your huge
misquote. No grammar involved whatsoever.
Your Grammar Nazi is trying to claim there's a huge difference between:
"The markets do this consistently."
and
"the markets do this consistently."
Oh I was wrong. You're sticking with this lie.
Ok because I'm almost done with your lying garbage, let me requote
myself:
"600 points to 44.4 is hardly a "plunge". The markets do this
constantly."
You're claim of what I said:
""The markets do this consistently."
Now look at it
word
for
word.
Tell me where your lie is.
If your complaint is that the quote didn't include the prior sentence
("600 points to 44.4 is hardly a "plunge"."), then you're trying to
complain that the context of "this" wasn't already clear. So I'll
revise accordingly to as follows:
You not only lie but you don't actually check when someone tells you
that you misquoted.
"The markets do [have 600+ point plunges] consistently."
I never said that.
I've
already provided you multiple examples of it happening in just the
last year.
Not in this thread you haven't: the only Points and Dates you've posted >>>> was:
Oh good grief..
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/26/investing/stocks-rate-cuts-inflation-fed/index.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/01/stock-market-today-live-updates.html
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/23/investing/dow-falls-waiting-fed-rate-cut/index.html
https://nypost.com/2024/11/21/business/dow-jumps-over-600-points-nasdaq-rebounds-in-volatile-wall-street-trading/
https://www.marketwatch.com/livecoverage/stock-market-today-dow-futures-dip-from-record-high
https://www.fxstreet.com/news/dow-jones-industrial-average-tumbles-380-points-on-thursday-as-rate-cut-hopes-deflate-202405231724
I can keep going if you'd like but the markets are volatile and
changes this large are rather common in modern times.
Just not as common as you've tried to suggest, particularly with your 5
degree temperature change analogy.
My cites support my claim.
The *do not* support YOUR lie about what I said.
"Laughter. 800 points in a day in 2020 with the market at 21K is more
significant than 600 in 2024 with the market at 44K."
Free clue: last year was not 2020.
You claimed it doesn't happen. Guess what, it does. See above.
Granted, 2024 also had some days with a big High-Low swing in volatility >>>> which exceeded the 715.48 swing of last Monday (3 Feb 25), but how many >>>> were there actually? Once per week? More?
Look at you trying to make me quantity a word.
Yup, because "consistently" is conveniently vague.
Laughter.
Read my original quote again.
It happens. It's not unusual.
Now quantify "not unusual".
I don't need to. My citations meet the required criteria.
How much more frequent is "not unusual" encountered versus "rare"?
In the eye of the reader.
Duh.
Get over it.
Dodge harder.
Laughter
Plus how many/few were predicated on drops instead of booms with the
market closing much higher from its open?
Do your damn homework before making your claims.
Laughter about a guy who can't even quote me correctly.
Grammar Nazi who's crying over one non-capitalized letter.
I've not said word one about your grammar. You're either lying or
being deliberately obtuse.
You sound like my weather app that says "temperatures to plunge" every >>>>>>> day when it changes by 5 degrees.
Trying to weasel out of your claim, we see. No, the analogy to outdoor >>>>>> temperature changes would need to exceed ±3?, so a ~50 degree change. >>>>>>
I gave you an analogy -- and your answer makes zero sense.
Your analogy attempt mislead on variance magnitude. Deliberately.
Run, run, run.
No, just pointing out your deliberate attempt to deceive & CYA, because
a daily temperature high minus low typically occurs *daily* in the USA,
but we don't have 600+ point swings daily in the Stock Market.
Who said we did? Cite and quote where *I* said this.
Come on.
Admit it.
You're lying.
For a guy who claims he comes to argument prepared, your magazine has
been quite empty.
On 2/9/25 9:25 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 13:48:04 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/8/25 9:37 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 08:04:37 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/7/25 6:50 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 08:22:45 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/6/25 7:19 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 09:52:48 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/5/25 7:10 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 13:20:09 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/4/25 7:22 AM, NoBody wrote:
On 3 Feb 2025 15:07:44 -0000, [email protected] (Bradley K. Sherman) >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
Helluva job, Mr. President!
--bks
Wow the Dow dropped to 44.4.
<eyeroll>
Well, it was at a high of 45,015 so that is bit of a slide ... >>>>>>>>>>>
600 points to 44.4 is hardly a "plunge". The markets do this >>>>>>>>>> constantly.
Care to document your claim that this magnitude of a swing is such a >>>>>>>>> "oh, no big deal" commonplace occurrence?
This is not what I said, was it?
Yes, it was: "the markets do this consistently."
I did not say that. Be accurate when you quote me please.
The full quote (which is still also included ~7 lines above):
"600 points to 44.4 is hardly a "plunge". The markets do this
constantly."
Here's what you said oh clueless one:
"Yes, it was: "the markets do this consistently.""
Do you see how that's not the same thing?
Your silence is your admission that you now realize how you lied about
what I said and hope I won't notice.
Because it was directly addressed a few more lines down.
As I told you, you don't get away with nonsense like that with me.
You lied.
Own it.
Whereas you admit in a few lines that you knew that it was addressed,
yet you deliberately left in this section before you hit <SEND>.
That lie was your choice you made, which you now own.
So your complaint is a Grammar Nazi one in that I changed the "The" to >>>>> "the" because it was preceded with a colon instead of a period. Right? >>>>>
No you idiot. Read it over and over again until you see your huge
misquote. No grammar involved whatsoever.
Your Grammar Nazi is trying to claim there's a huge difference between:
"The markets do this consistently."
and
"the markets do this consistently."
Oh I was wrong. You're sticking with this lie.
See?
Ok because I'm almost done with your lying garbage, let me requote
myself:
"600 points to 44.4 is hardly a "plunge". The markets do this
constantly."
You're claim of what I said:
""The markets do this consistently."
Now look at it
word
for
word.
Tell me where your lie is.
There is no lie. You're apparently trying to imply that my quoting of
you must have retained the ""600 points to 44.4 is hardly a "plunge"." >portion because otherwise your "this" in the second sentence might be >misinterpreted ... by you? /s ... to be something else. See:
If your complaint is that the quote didn't include the prior sentence
("600 points to 44.4 is hardly a "plunge"."), then you're trying to
complain that the context of "this" wasn't already clear. So I'll
revise accordingly to as follows:
You not only lie but you don't actually check when someone tells you
that you misquoted.
Then do yourself what you demand of others:
"Cite RIGHT here..."
And show us the exact difference that you claim exists.
"The markets do [have 600+ point plunges] consistently."
I never said that.
Oh, so you don't actually know what the brackets mean in a quote?
Go find your Harbrace Handbook and look it up.
If you never owned one, you can try your local library, or Amazon:
<https://www.amazon.com/Hodges-Harbrace-Handbook-2016-Update/dp/133727951X/>
I've
already provided you multiple examples of it happening in just the >>>>>> last year.
Not in this thread you haven't: the only Points and Dates you've posted >>>>> was:
Oh good grief..
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/26/investing/stocks-rate-cuts-inflation-fed/index.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/01/stock-market-today-live-updates.html
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/23/investing/dow-falls-waiting-fed-rate-cut/index.html
https://nypost.com/2024/11/21/business/dow-jumps-over-600-points-nasdaq-rebounds-in-volatile-wall-street-trading/
https://www.marketwatch.com/livecoverage/stock-market-today-dow-futures-dip-from-record-high
https://www.fxstreet.com/news/dow-jones-industrial-average-tumbles-380-points-on-thursday-as-rate-cut-hopes-deflate-202405231724
I can keep going if you'd like but the markets are volatile and
changes this large are rather common in modern times.
Just not as common as you've tried to suggest, particularly with your 5
degree temperature change analogy.
My cites support my claim.
The *do not* support YOUR lie about what I said.
Nope. Stop lying.
On 2/9/25 9:13 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 13:52:37 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/8/25 9:41 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 08:21:01 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/7/25 6:41 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 08:16:08 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/6/25 7:08 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 09:57:55 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/5/25 7:15 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 12:56:27 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/4/25 7:02 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
-hh wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:Reportedly, there's another (yet again) revised version out >>>>>>>>>>> today which
On 2/3/25 4:49 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
-hh wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
On 2/3/25 12:42 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Bradley K. Sherman wrote this post while blinking in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Morse code:
Helluva job, Mr. President!
<snip>
Question is which Media outlets will report on the USA's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obligation.
Exactly. American main media generally sane-washes Trump. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And they are
generally quite incomplete in their research. They won't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> report the gun export
information.
Precisely.
They don't report that Musk's minions are accessing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> classified data without
clearance. They don't report that Musk's takeover is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fucking ILLEGAL.
The mainsteam media is an ass.
I'm worried for those who are going to get hurt bad by it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> The manager
that I replaced at work ~4 years ago told me literally this >>>>>>>>>>>>> morning that
instead of retiring this spring, he's accept "the offer" to >>>>>>>>>>>>> get an extra
few months of pay. I noted VERA/VSIP reg's & wished him >>>>>>>>>>>>> best of luck.
Amazed that he's gambling his ~$75K/yr pension for so >>>>>>>>>>>>> relatively little.
I have a friend in the VA chewing on that deal. He was >>>>>>>>>>>> planning on retiring
about now, but....
I hope he realizes it is a scam promoted by Muskrat, who >>>>>>>>>>>> pulled the same trick
on the Twitter employees he laid off when he took over. >>>>>>>>>>>
has added a whole bunch of legal fine print. Basically, lots >>>>>>>>>>> of bailout
conditions where they won't have to pay the employee.
"Reporedly"??
Laughter.
Go check the overnight updates yourself.
It's your claim, you support it.
I won't do your homework.
Here's a start:
<https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce/2025/02/union-lawsuit- >>>>>>> seeks-to-block-deferred-resignation-program/>
You're claiming something about a "revised version...which has
added a
whole bunch of legal fine print"
Nothing about it at your citation.
Quit dodging. Can you support this claim or not?
Here's one letter that's currently on the OPM website. Its a January >>>>> version, not the February versions which went out this week:
<https://www.opm.gov/fork>
Where's the letter that contains the addition of "fine legal print" as >>>> you claimed.
Its in my other 2/7/25 reply (14:30), which you avoided responding to.
Now you're typing in circles in an attempt to avoid admitted your lie.
You don't get to do that.
Cite RIGHT here the citation and the added "fine legal print". (Ensure
that you include a version of the document without the "fine legal
print").
Here's that section of the 2/7/25 14:50hrs post which you avoided
replying to:
[quote]
Here's one letter that's currently on the OPM website. Its
a January version, not the February versions which went out
this week:
<https://www.opm.gov/fork>
And below is the link to one of this week's updates:
<https://www.chcoc.gov/content/legality-deferred-resignation-program>
The exercise is left up to the readers to compare the two to see if the 2/4/25 letter (8 pages) has more 'legalese' than the 1/28/25 (3 pages) one.
-hh
[/quote]
Hint: you don't get away with nonsense when communicating with me.
But it won't stop you from trying I see.
But in the meantime, you claimed that big drops like Monday's are >>>>>>> veryActually you didn't ask but just in recent history there have been >>>>>> changes up and down and 600 or more points.
routine in the Stock Market, and asked to substantiate that claim. >>>>>>
https://www.cnbctv18.com/market/wall-street-slips-as-2024-nears-
close-dow-jones-drops-over-600-points-19532067.htm
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/26/investing/stocks-rate-cuts-
inflation-fed/index.html
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2024-09-03/stock-market-
today-wall-street-tumbles-on-worries-about-the-economy-and-dow-
drops-more-than-600
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/markets/dow-slides-500-points-
sp-500-retreats-record-nasdaq-hits-new-heights-rcna153781
Now you're going to ramble about something that makes no sense.
So count up the occurrences and show us how routine these
magnitudes of
drops actually are.
Have you done that yet?
ecause if not, you're knowingly being a hypocrite. Again.
Laughter. Still waiting for you to support your FIRST claim yet you >>>>>> demand I answer your questions.
Already done.
Laughter....
You're delusional.
Silence.
This morning's is saying that
LOGIN.GOV has been compromised & to not log in.
Citation?
Nothing in the news. How odd.
Do you not know how to look, or did you not bother to look any
further
than Fox News?
<https://idtechwire.com/social-security-makes-login-gov-
mandatory-for-online-users/>
Nothing about a compromised log in as you claimed.
Of course not, because that's a page from last summer that documents >>>>> that Social Security recipients now have to have a LOGIN.GOV account. >>>>>
If I hadn't provided that, you would have tried to scream that SS
wasn't
at risk from this compromised report.
Dude: Last time.
Provide a citation to your claim that the log in was compromised as
you claimed or admit you lied about it.
Where did I claim specifically that the login was what was compromised?
Quote it, Mr Grammar Nazi.
OMG. You have major difficulties in sentence composition.
That's not a quote, Mr. Grammar Nazi.
As you demanded: "Cite RIGHT here the citation..."
-hh
On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 18:35:43 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/9/25 9:25 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 13:48:04 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/8/25 9:37 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 08:04:37 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/7/25 6:50 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 08:22:45 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/6/25 7:19 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 09:52:48 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/5/25 7:10 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 13:20:09 -0500, -hh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/4/25 7:22 AM, NoBody wrote:
On 3 Feb 2025 15:07:44 -0000, [email protected] (Bradley K. Sherman) >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
Helluva job, Mr. President!
--bks
Wow the Dow dropped to 44.4.
<eyeroll>
Well, it was at a high of 45,015 so that is bit of a slide ... >>>>>>>>>>>>
600 points to 44.4 is hardly a "plunge". The markets do this >>>>>>>>>>> constantly.
Care to document your claim that this magnitude of a swing is such a >>>>>>>>>> "oh, no big deal" commonplace occurrence?
This is not what I said, was it?
Yes, it was: "the markets do this consistently."
I did not say that. Be accurate when you quote me please.
The full quote (which is still also included ~7 lines above):
"600 points to 44.4 is hardly a "plunge". The markets do this
constantly."
Here's what you said oh clueless one:
"Yes, it was: "the markets do this consistently.""
Do you see how that's not the same thing?
Your silence is your admission that you now realize how you lied about
what I said and hope I won't notice.
Because it was directly addressed a few more lines down.
You didn't address jack.
That's why I called you out on it TWICE.
So your complaint is a Grammar Nazi one in that I changed the "The" to >>>>>> "the" because it was preceded with a colon instead of a period. Right? >>>>>>
No you idiot. Read it over and over again until you see your huge
misquote. No grammar involved whatsoever.
Your Grammar Nazi is trying to claim there's a huge difference between: >>>>
"The markets do this consistently."
and
"the markets do this consistently."
Oh I was wrong. You're sticking with this lie.
See?
You lied about what I said in the above TWICE.
Ok because I'm almost done with your lying garbage, let me requote
myself:
"600 points to 44.4 is hardly a "plunge". The markets do this
constantly."
You're claim of what I said:
""The markets do this consistently."
Now look at it
word
for
word.
Tell me where your lie is.
There is no lie. You're apparently trying to imply that my quoting of
you must have retained the ""600 points to 44.4 is hardly a "plunge"."
portion because otherwise your "this" in the second sentence might be
misinterpreted ... by you? /s ... to be something else. See:
You're a fool.
I'm spelling it out for you now.
You claim I said:
""The markets do this consistently."
I said:
"The markets do this constantly".
Do you see the difference?
Two
Completely
different
words
with
different
meanings.
If your complaint is that the quote didn't include the prior sentence
("600 points to 44.4 is hardly a "plunge"."), then you're trying to
complain that the context of "this" wasn't already clear. So I'll
revise accordingly to as follows:
You not only lie but you don't actually check when someone tells you
that you misquoted.
Then do yourself what you demand of others:
"Cite RIGHT here..."
And show us the exact difference that you claim exists.
I just did fool.
I gave you evey chance in the book to correct yourself but in your
arrogance (or deliberately lying) you would not find your lie.
"The markets do [have 600+ point plunges] consistently."
I never said that.
Oh, so you don't actually know what the brackets mean in a quote?
Go find your Harbrace Handbook and look it up.
If you never owned one, you can try your local library, or Amazon:
<https://www.amazon.com/Hodges-Harbrace-Handbook-2016-Update/dp/133727951X/>
FOOL. You can't read.
I've
already provided you multiple examples of it happening in just the >>>>>>> last year.
Not in this thread you haven't: the only Points and Dates you've posted >>>>>> was:
Oh good grief..
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/26/investing/stocks-rate-cuts-inflation-fed/index.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/01/stock-market-today-live-updates.html >>>>>
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/23/investing/dow-falls-waiting-fed-rate-cut/index.html
https://nypost.com/2024/11/21/business/dow-jumps-over-600-points-nasdaq-rebounds-in-volatile-wall-street-trading/
https://www.marketwatch.com/livecoverage/stock-market-today-dow-futures-dip-from-record-high
https://www.fxstreet.com/news/dow-jones-industrial-average-tumbles-380-points-on-thursday-as-rate-cut-hopes-deflate-202405231724
I can keep going if you'd like but the markets are volatile and
changes this large are rather common in modern times.
Just not as common as you've tried to suggest, particularly with your 5 >>>> degree temperature change analogy.
My cites support my claim.
The *do not* support YOUR lie about what I said.
Nope. Stop lying.
Lying from a liar who claims others lie?
You've managed to run in circles for days because you can't tell the difference between two words.
Yeah I'm done with you.
<plonk>
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 716 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 56:51:29 |
| Calls: | 12,117 |
| Files: | 15,010 |
| Messages: | 6,518,672 |