Michelle B submits: Teresa Lo recently has written a less than flattering article (which is closed to comments) about trading bloggers. When I have visited her site previously, my impression was unfavorable. Perhaps, it is my own denseness, but when at her site I desperately needed to have a smug and dripping sarcasm decoder nearby, because I was looking at my native language in its written form, unable to grasp the meaning, sense, and flavor of her writing style.
When I read Procol’s comment (Fade her at your own peril) to the Daily Options Report’s entry regarding Lo’s article, my first thought was fading or not fading Lo or any other guru or expert does not enter my mind when I trade, as I trade only per my methodologies. There is no peril in my trading life, as I follow my risk parameters consistently. But if her site ever becomes comprehensible to me, then I will evaluate whether or not her approach and her knowledge has any merit for me.
Elitism coupled with a nanny state mentality is not my cup of tea. I encounter this mentality when I edit the Wikipedia. Several months ago, there was such an ‘expert’ who railed at the very democratic and quite messy way of doing things at Wikipedia, saying it was disgusting that teenagers were allowed to edit an encyclopedia. I love reading teenagers’ comments on the discussion pages. Their Wikipedia profiles show writers and researchers full of positive, constructive energy, eager to contribute, and who just happen to be teenagers. And they are constantly teaching me. Embracing the Wikipedian exhort to be bold, I continue.
I remember a commentator for one of Roger Nusbaum’s entries stated that another blog was so egregious Roger should not recommend yet another website that has put that blog at the top of its blog rating list. Roger replied (and I am paraphasing here), in his inimitably calm manner, that it is the decision of the reader to decide what they want to read and what they do not want to read, and if there is no interest in a blog, there will be no readers. No need to haul in the censor troops. What a concept! Alfred Marshall referred to this concept as supply and demand.
The criticism directed at trading blogs is they do not say anything these critics do not already know, that you can get valuable information only if you are willing to pay, and if these bloggers were good at what they do, they wouldn’t be blogging. Apparently these critics have not considered perhaps the reason why a trading blogger writes is because he has something to write that has merit to someone, and he has a generous spirit, but nothing to sell — he is already making a good living. It also does not occur to these critics that they need to focus on finding sources that teach them something they do not know. The Web allows us to be able to find sources of information that can present material either via its content or style in a way which is new to us. The last time I looked in the mirror, I saw myself, not these critics.
As for trading blogs having the potential to hurt their readers, life is dangerous. Why not prohibit driving? People die in car accidents. Why not prohibit drinking hot beverages? Drinkers of hot beverages get scalded. Why not prohibit sex? One could get a disease or an unwanted pregnancy (now that would really be throwing the baby out with the bathwater!).
I have a cunning plan. Why don’t we encourage people to educate and protect themselves, so they can make choices, and then evaluate those choices, and perhaps even learn from their mistakes, so they can improve their lives?