Originally Posted by cleaner
First you make a statement without anything whatsoever to back it up.
Then I ask perfectly reasonably what you're basing that statement on.
And your response is to immediately go on about ME taking things personally & talk about me not liking differing opinions etc etc etc.
You're also now saying that what you posted was merely your opinion but that's not what you said at the time, you simply stated:
"The studies are based on what people are saying not on what they really think.
Most people say things which they think they are expected to say. "
I have no problem whatsoever with differing points of views. However if you want to make a blanket statement that something I've posted is incorrect then you should be able to back it up somehow.
Extremely childish to (a) take things personally & (b) try to cover that up by accusing me of what actually YOU are doing.
Anyway, if you have a sensible response please post it, I'm all for healthy debate & if you have some facts, or even reasoned argument, to back up your earlier assertion I'm keen to hear them. As for the rest I'm comfortable that anyone reading this thread can see for themselves which one of us is afraid of differing opinions.
Fella, I don't have neither time nor inclination to continue it and it is OT anyway.
Be happy with your statements, take on mines, call me child, whatever. I do not care.
Saying someone's opinion is incorrect is boldish IMHO - you can disagree or agree, but not call it incorrect. Posts are either opinions (like mine was) or facts (like wagering requirements or minimum odds, etc.)
Take care, I'm taking my coat now.
Cheers and good luck.
Fair enough. As I said, if you do have something to back up your earlier assertion I'd be happy to continue the debate. If not I agree we should leave it there.
Plenty of more lucrative things to spend time on.
Hey guys remember "please be nice to all moneysavers". .........whoops wrong forum
PS Interesting thread.
I really need to set my goals higher. When I started bonus hunting, in April 2009, I set a loose goal for the next 12 months - reached that in a few weeks. Then I set a goal for the summer - made four times as much. Then I set a Christmas goal, made it some time in October. Before the new year I set my self a 2010 goal I thought was rather ambitious. I have made over 40% of it so far in 2010 (with quite a bit of luck, I admit). Should I double it?
Is it not more positive to massively exceed your goals than fall short? Unless u can up your game and do more by setting higher limits id prefer to over exceed my goals. Call it positive psychology or something...
Indeed, after my brief hiatus; I set my self the goal of £100 a week. Enough to keep my going and cover my weekly expenditure.
This was supposed to be an average; i've changed it
to a minimum or maybe a monthly average rather than increasing the amount i'm aiming for to what I'm getting now; as I don't think the good times can last forever. Mind you I have been saying this for quite sometime now!
A wise man told me don't argue with fools, cos people from a distance can't tell who is who ~ Jay Z
Well, IMO, goals are worthless if they don't make you work extra hard to reach them. If they are too low, they might even slow you down when you see you will easily reach them.
Originally Posted by howardmarks7