P&N'rs beloved BLS numbers "leaked" before Official release time causing Market volatility and scandal

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
[ ... ]
But yeah, we'll bleat about something as "fact" when it is only an allegation with plenty of plausible explainations. But on the off chance dave is right - I hope the people responsible for the leak are hung by their toe nails.

Now run along Bow - you are 0-2 in the last two days in your knee-jerk attempts to smear me.

CkG

You smear yourself Sir Cad. I just report.

BTW, Dave did not state this was a fact even though you (mis-)quoted him as saying it. This isn't the first time I've nailed you for inventing quotes. I'm sure you'll now explain how this is my fault too. You always do.

Bump for the reading-impaired Bush apologists, but I'm being redundant.


etech: I'm not whining about anything, thanks. I pointed out Cad misquoted Dave, a bad habit I've called him on in the past. The rest is Cad demonstrating that, like so many neo-con virtues, his vaunted "personal responsibility" is something they preach but don't practice themselves.

HelloDeli: you can stuff your "paint chips" next to Cad's "run along". I am not responsible for your reading impairment.

Cad: you are now 0-73 in the last two days. I know this is true, not because I have any basis for it, but because I say so. Just like you. Now run along.


This has already consumed more bandwidth than it deserves. All that was really necessary was a one- or two-line acknowledgment from Cad that Dave didn't really call it a "fact", even though Cad quoted it as if Dave did. That's all. A simple matter of character, integrity, and credibility.

And like I stated you were WRONG in your ASSumption that It was a quote attributed to dave. If you can't see that dave's title implies that it is "fact" instead of suspicion or suggestion of a leak - then you are more warped than I thought you were.

So run along - you keep trying to swing at a pitch that isn't even there to swing at(but it is amusing)

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

And since Bow finally decided to try to address the topic...kind of...

"There is sometimes heavy trading just before the numbers are released and we have no indication that it was related in any way to an early release of the data," Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner Kathleen Utgoff told Reuters in response to a question.

Some financial market participants had speculated that the data, which was officially released at 8:30 a.m. (1330 GMT) on Friday, may have been leaked.

CkG

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: XZeroII
This affects my life...how? In any way...?

If you are an investor and if reports like this are sometimes leaked, then you are being played by other investors with inside information.

I mean me personally, or anyone else on these boards.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
And like I stated you were WRONG in your ASSumption that It was a quote attributed to dave. If you can't see that dave's title implies that it is "fact" instead of suspicion or suggestion of a leak - then you are more warped than I thought you were.

So run along - you keep trying to swing at a pitch that isn't even there to swing at(but it is amusing)

CkG

One doesn't quote (i.e., mark with quotation marks) something that is implied. One only quotes literal quotes, words actually said or typed by the person in question. To do otherwise is dishonest. I might have chalked this up to your general lack of English proficiency but I have explained it to you before.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: XZeroII
This affects my life...how? In any way...?

If you are an investor and if reports like this are sometimes leaked, then you are being played by other investors with inside information.

I mean me personally, or anyone else on these boards.

Please note I used "if" twice. If the qualifications I stipulated do not apply, you can insert the word "not" as appropriate in the same sentence to understand its effect on you.

 

[Michael]

Bowfinger - I read Dave's title as a statement of fact. The article he cites does not support his title (which is the case in the majority of the links he posts).

In this case I agree with CkG's point.

Michael

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
And like I stated you were WRONG in your ASSumption that It was a quote attributed to dave. If you can't see that dave's title implies that it is "fact" instead of suspicion or suggestion of a leak - then you are more warped than I thought you were.

So run along - you keep trying to swing at a pitch that isn't even there to swing at(but it is amusing)

CkG

One doesn't quote (i.e., mark with quotation marks) something that is implied. One only quotes literal quotes, words actually said or typed by the person in question. To do otherwise is dishonest. I might have chalked this up to your general lack of English proficiency but I have explained it to you before.

yes, one can use "quotes" without it being directly attributed to someone.

Quotation Marks for Words

Use quotation marks to indicate words used ironically, with reservations, or in some unusual way.

The great march of "progress" has left millions impoverished and hungry.

Now you were saying something about "lack of English proficiency"...?

CkG

 

[BNO]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: XZeroII
This affects my life...how? In any way...?

If you are an investor and if reports like this are sometimes leaked, then you are being played by other investors with inside information.

Exactly how was the normal investor harmed? The only people interested in the extended hours futures market or fx trading are pros. Or are you suggesting that there are little old grandmas out there trading eurodollar strips at 8:25 a.m.?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
And like I stated you were WRONG in your ASSumption that It was a quote attributed to dave. If you can't see that dave's title implies that it is "fact" instead of suspicion or suggestion of a leak - then you are more warped than I thought you were.

So run along - you keep trying to swing at a pitch that isn't even there to swing at(but it is amusing)

CkG

One doesn't quote (i.e., mark with quotation marks) something that is implied. One only quotes literal quotes, words actually said or typed by the person in question. To do otherwise is dishonest. I might have chalked this up to your general lack of English proficiency but I have explained it to you before.

yes, one can use "quotes" without it being directly attributed to someone.

Quotation Marks for Words

Use quotation marks to indicate words used ironically, with reservations, or in some unusual way.

The great march of "progress" has left millions impoverished and hungry.

Now you were saying something about "lack of English proficiency"...?

CkG

Oh please. You act as if I am the Journalist and Investigators that originated the word "leak".

Why do you fear a "leak" by the BLS people so?

 

[ReiAyanami]

The Billionaire's Club states there is no leak. Now go back to your jobs if you have one.

 

[Bowfinger]

N/M

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Oh please. You act as if I am the Journalist and Investigators that originated the word "leak".

Why do you fear a "leak" by the BLS people so?

No - I'm saying your title suggests the "possible leak"(from your article) was "fact" and Bowfinger got his panties in a bunch because he thought I was attributing "fact" to you...but we all know you and "facts" are allergic to each other

I don't fear a "leak" - I already stated that IF there was someone who leaked the info they should be strung up by their toe nails.

CkG

 

[burnedout]

Hey Dave. OT, but where is your Wally World thread? Here is another one for you.

 

[SuperTool]

Premature ejaculators at the whitehouse?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Michael
Bowfinger - I read Dave's title as a statement of fact. The article he cites does not support his title (which is the case in the majority of the links he posts).

In this case I agree with CkG's point.

Michael

OK. But you would be mistaken. That you agree with Cad's interpretation still doesn't make it an accurate quote. That remains my point. I have no issue wth Cad (or you) discussing Dave's article. I just expect people to do so honestly.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
One doesn't quote (i.e., mark with quotation marks) something that is implied. One only quotes literal quotes, words actually said or typed by the person in question. To do otherwise is dishonest. I might have chalked this up to your general lack of English proficiency but I have explained it to you before.

yes, one can use "quotes" without it being directly attributed to someone.

Quotation Marks for Words

Use quotation marks to indicate words used ironically, with reservations, or in some unusual way.

The great march of "progress" has left millions impoverished and hungry.

Now you were saying something about "lack of English proficiency"...?

CkG

Wrong again. Is that now 0-74?

Yes, there are other valid uses for quotes in the appropriate context. Yours wasn't one of them. Have you seen the Friends commercial where Joey doesn't get air quotes, i.e., making quoting symbols in the air to indicate the ironic or unusual use of a word? Ross says something like, "You're not doing it right, Joey." That would be you.

From your same link:

Direct quotations are another person's exact words -- either spoken or in print -- incorporated into your own writing.

• Use a set of quotation marks to enclose each direct quotation included in your writing.
• Use a capital letter with the first word of a direct quotation of a whole sentence. Do not use a capital letter with the first word of a direct quotation of part of a sentence.
• [ ... ]

Indirect quotations are not exact words but rather rephrasings or summaries of another person's words. Do not use quotation marks for indirect quotations.

• According to their statement to the local papers, the Allens refuse to use pesticide because of potential water pollution.

Your use of "fact" was your interpretation of Dave's comments. It was your rephrasing or summary of his actual words. It was therefore misleading to quote it as a direct quote.

And I have explained this to you before.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
One doesn't quote (i.e., mark with quotation marks) something that is implied. One only quotes literal quotes, words actually said or typed by the person in question. To do otherwise is dishonest. I might have chalked this up to your general lack of English proficiency but I have explained it to you before.

yes, one can use "quotes" without it being directly attributed to someone.

Quotation Marks for Words

Use quotation marks to indicate words used ironically, with reservations, or in some unusual way.

The great march of "progress" has left millions impoverished and hungry.

Now you were saying something about "lack of English proficiency"...?

CkG

Wrong again. Is that now 0-74?

Yes, there are other valid uses for quotes in the appropriate context. Yours wasn't one of them. Have you seen the Friends commercial where Joey doesn't get air quotes, i.e., making quoting symbols in the air to indicate the ironic or unusual use of a word? Ross says something like, "You're not doing it right, Joey." That would be you.

From your same link:

Direct quotations are another person's exact words -- either spoken or in print -- incorporated into your own writing.

• Use a set of quotation marks to enclose each direct quotation included in your writing.
• Use a capital letter with the first word of a direct quotation of a whole sentence. Do not use a capital letter with the first word of a direct quotation of part of a sentence.
• [ ... ]

Indirect quotations are not exact words but rather rephrasings or summaries of another person's words. Do not use quotation marks for indirect quotations.

• According to their statement to the local papers, the Allens refuse to use pesticide because of potential water pollution.

Your use of "fact" was your interpretation of Dave's comments. It was your rephrasing or summary of his actual words. It was therefore misleading to quote it as a direct quote.

And I have explained this to you before.

Nope - you need more English schooling I've been through this with many professors(as they tried to pull the same BS as you but in the end they found my usage like I did here acceptable).
You just can't accept it because you'd have to admit you were wrong and jumped the gun. Now run along Bow - you've been swinging at a non-existant pitch so you're still not going to hit it no matter how many times you try.

CkG

Edit- gotta love the English language - it's so fluid...

 

[Bowfinger]

Cad, you are wrong. Period. Either show the integrity to acknowledge it or shut up.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Cad, you are wrong. Period. Either show the integrity to acknowledge it or shut up.

No -that is a challenge for yourself. You are wrong Bow - go back and try to figure out your error - I'm done with your incessant BS about the use of quotations. Just admit it or run along.

CkG

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: burnedout
Hey Dave. OT, but where is your Wally World thread? Here is another one for you.

Without even clicking on the link I'm sure it's about the 800,000 credit card screw up at Wally's World.

Thanks for keeping another eye out on the almighty empire.

 

[BNO]

Not to get into the middle of a pissing contest but again how were investors harmed and why are you guys making such a big deal out of this. Do any of you implying a leak was behind the action have any idea how the market works, the speed with which it works or how large orders by both prop traders aka "locals" or from the prop desk of a i. bank or hedge fund can move the market especially pre-open and before important numbers? I love the conjecture from those who know little to nothing about what they rant about. So please, enlighten me.

 

[Michael]

Bowfinger - "fact" in quotes to show that it wasn't meant to really mean fact is correct usage. If that is what your problem is, you're wrong. It is somewhat clunky usage, but correct.

Personally, I use it all the time in emails.

Michael

 

[ReiAyanami]

but again how were investors harmed and why are you guys making such a big deal out of this.

because that means somebody is making a killing because they have unfair access to knowledge.

the point is nobody should get a free lunch they don't deserve, not even martha stewart.

her insider trading has no effect on you or me, and the media has blown it out of proportion, but she should not be allowed to do what she did just because she is (was) friends with the CEO.

 

[CrazyHelloDeli]

Whoa. Looks like Factcheck.org is on the case.

FactCheck.org Front Page

 

[BNO]

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
but again how were investors harmed and why are you guys making such a big deal out of this.

because that means somebody is making a killing because they have unfair access to knowledge.

the point is nobody should get a free lunch they don't deserve, not even martha stewart.

her insider trading has no effect on you or me, and the media has blown it out of proportion, but she should not be allowed to do what she did just because she is (was) friends with the CEO.

But this thread implies that somehow investors were hurt. They in fact weren't. If you want to assert that pros were disadvantaged fine, but I heard few people complaining, more curiosity about whether it was a coordinated order from a big house or fund. I've seen moves like this quite a few times before some were legit, some not but there are many other explanations other than a leak. The title of this thread claims scandal but I see nothing of the sort just a lot of jumping to conclusions by people who read a single article.