|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
<x-html><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#d8d0c8>
<DIV><FONT size=2>A simple clearing up of a misstatement by Ton (whom I respect
for his contributions to the group), if I may. The Department of Justice is part
of the Executive Branch of the United States government. The Federal Court in
which the trial is taking place in part of the Judicial Branch of the United
States government. The Department of Justice is the public prosecutor in this
trial, and Microsoft is the defendant.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Having said that, it is the Judge (not the DOJ) who was
written a Findings of Fact, which is his legal document summarizing the
allegations that were proven to be true on the basis of evidence presented by
>both< sides in the trial. It is the Judge who will determine what, if
any, penalties that will be applied to Microsoft, but that is the cart before
the horse. The only roles for the DOJ have been to prosecute the trial and to
possibly agree to an out-of-court settlement.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>After the evidentiary portion of the trial was completed,
there are 3 steps :</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>1. the Judge's Findings of Fact,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>2. the Judge's Findings of Law, stating which, if any,
specific laws were broken by Microsoft (the trial could stop with this
step),</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>3. the Judge's ruling on how Microsoft will be punished if it
is determined that laws were broken.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>The domestic and world press can't present an accurate picture
of this entire proceeding if an detailed script were handed to them. That's
unfortunate, because shareholders like Ton are largely misinformed about almost
all details of the trial. But Ton's rights as a shareholder do not supersede the
rights of people and companies who have been victimized by Microsoft's business
practices.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>As far as the final outcome is concerned, don't be surprised
if Microsoft cuts a deal with the Department of Justice. At least in this way it
has some control over the outcome. If it refuses to do so, the matter is
entirely in the hands of the judge, over whom Microsoft has no influence
whatsoever, nor does the DOJ have any influence over the judge. This entire
matter can remain in the courts, assuming that Microsoft makes continual
appeals, until most of us are in the grave, but that would not help its stock
price as Wall Street would begin to sense that too much management
attention is being diverted from running the business. Look at the actions
of the tobacco companies and their stocks if you want a model of a losing cause
stretched beyond all rational sensibilities.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Contrary to the experience of the breakup of the telephone
companies, the breakup of Microsoft (who knows if that will happen) will not
necessarily produce the same outcome as far as investors are concerned. A
Microsoft divided cannot use its monopoly position is one arena to create a
monopoly position in other arenas, which is precisely what it did with abusive
use of its OS license to create a near monopoly in office suite applications and
to work toward a near monopoly in internet browsers, in effect setting itself up
to control the internet revolution for its personal benefit. In every way
possible Microsoft has served to restrict my choices as a consumer. To Ton's
benefit, the DOJ's ineptitude in the last case that Microsoft lost to the DOJ is
the reason that we are in an even worse situation today.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Microsoft should consider itself lucky that some its
executives and low-level managers are not in jail today for the perjured
testimony that they gave in the trial. In one instance they falsified videotapes
as proof of an assertion they had made in court that Windows and IE could not be
separated within causing the OS to malfunction. That they falsified the evidence
was discovered almost immediately. This made a mockery of ethical behavior,
which is something that respects fair and reasonable conduct, and it made clear
Microsoft's disdain of what testimony under oath means. Microsoft deserves a
financial penalty of huge proportion to make sure that it will not repeat
such conduct in the future, because it would be suicide to do so for its
shareholders, which includes its own executives and employees. Wall Street
institutions are major shareholders of Microsoft equities, who would not
tolerate the future possibility of risking their investment to "loose cannon on
the deck" actions of irresponsible managers inside the company. Bill Gates will
find that he is no longer the wealthiest man in the US if Microsoft continues to
behave abusively and illegally in the marketplace.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I respect companies who succeed by virtue of the technical
superiority of their ideas and their products. I do not find an ally in
companies who attempt to destroy the products of other companies not by their
own superiority but by their breaking of laws to further their business ends.
But I have no prediction for Microsoft's fate, and no one else knows what it
will be either. Certainly not the press nor the rumor mills of Wall Street.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Joe</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><B>-----Original Message-----</B><BR><B>From:
</B>A.J. Maas <<A
href="mailto:anthmaas@xxxxxxxxx";>anthmaas@xxxxxxxxx</A>><BR><B>To:
</B>Metastock-List <<A
href="mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>><BR><B>Date:
</B>Sunday, January 16, 2000 08:07 AM<BR><B>Subject: </B>Re: to be or not to
be<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT size=2>
<DIV><FONT size=2>A last note on this subject:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>There are several rumours going on that the DOJ will give
out his FINAL findings report</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>and FINAL ruling somewhere in the next month, eg Febr
2000.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>At that time of publicing of the Final report and the
DOJ's Final ruling, the Microsoft share</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>and </FONT><FONT size=2>any </FONT><FONT size=2>of its
other listings, will (</FONT><FONT size=2>have to) be suspended (see also
further below).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Now:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>- Anyone owning a share(or other listing) ON that
moment of suspension, </FONT><FONT size=2>will be elagable for any
payments</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> coming out of any later to be
filed compansation claims (if these </FONT><FONT size=2>compensation
actions</FONT><FONT size=2> are also started).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>- Anyone owning a share(or other listing) AFTER
</FONT><FONT size=2>they will come back into listing again,</FONT><FONT
size=2> are not elegable to</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> any results that can stem from any results
coming out of claim procedures.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>This is standard Exchanges procedure, when a listing's
rumerous vital information will be publicaly </FONT><FONT
size=2>announced</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>that can have a large effect on the underlay's
listing.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Thus, Buy the stock BEFORE the last final word comes out
!!!.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR>Regards,<BR>Ton Maas<BR><A
href="mailto:ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A><BR>Dismiss
the ".nospam" bit (including the dot) when replying and<BR>note the new
address change. Also for my Homepage<BR><A
href="http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas";>http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas</A></DIV></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR>Regards,<BR>Ton Maas<BR><A
href="mailto:ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A><BR>Dismiss
the ".nospam" bit (including the dot) when replying and<BR>note the new
address change. Also for my Homepage<BR><A
href="http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas";>http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
A.J. Maas
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
href="mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";
title=metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>Metastock-List</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> zaterdag 15 januari 2000
23:47</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: to be or not to be</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I am speaking from a user and shareholder's point of
view, and not forgetting what is right and what is wrong. That makes
me a happy go round type of private person and part-owner. Whatever
covered </FONT><FONT size=2>communism is to be brought upon me or my
properties, will be met accordingly. The DOJ is a biased state employed
marrionet, that probably not personaly, but indeed combined with his
mates, the Gov+States, will figurerarly bleed for his actions or any
by him taken actions, that will or can at any way and at any time
damage my own (intellectual) possesions and properties, eg shares and
stuff.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR>Regards,<BR>Ton Maas<BR><A
href="mailto:ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A><BR>Dismiss
the ".nospam" bit (including the dot) when replying and<BR>note the new
address change. Also for my Homepage<BR><A
href="http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas";>http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A href="mailto:jehardt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";
title=jehardt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Joseph Ehardt</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
href="mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";
title=metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> zaterdag 15 januari 2000
18:10</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: to be or not to
be</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I don't think I have anything mixed up. More likely is
that I have read the publicly distributed Findings of Fact in DOJ vs
Microsoft and am more familiar with American law.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>TM: I am assuming US law not to be any different
than laws elswhere. If there is to be an unsatisfactory outcome coming
from this dispute, then the European Commission has got some artillary
it wants to throw at Microsoft too. In that, laws are laws. Again, this
artillary is intervering with one's private properties and free
enterprise. As such the Shareholders Association here in the Netherlands
and its sister organisations elswhere in the EuroCommunity are ready
to fully head-on attack the EC's Commission, naturaly with endless
claims to follow. Claims that will be coming in from around the globe.
Where these Governments around the globe seems to team up (the EC has a
deal with the US Fed, to await the outcome first), more many is in the
hand of shareholders. Enough to break societies</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>and their Governments to realy go into bankruptcy. Now
how will that effect the consumer ??</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>From your comments, which are pretty far ranging,
I think you might not understand what Microsoft did with respect to
Compaq. It also did similar things with other companies. But let me
return to Compaq, because it helps to understand the facts as revealed
by Microsoft's own internal documents as made public in the
trial.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>TM: Microsoft is at liberty to end licences for their
software as they wish. So is Compaq at liberty to develope their own
software. If their to lazy or not aggressive enough or not financed
enough, then they should seek advise from professionals, as to how
to be succesfull in software too. Also Compaq is at liberty to refuse to
sell Microsoft products with their computers too, and let buying an
OS up to their own customers. Not a very clever thing to do, but
its their right and choise. The negative side of this is that Microsoft
might than not sell enough of its software, and than that would be up to
Microsoft to solve. Here Microsoft has done its homework, where Compaq
</FONT><FONT size=2>enriched its executives while they did not do
their homework, eg were failures and ought to be sacked. Just see how
easy Dell surpassed the utherly simple selling techniques Compaq
enherrited from the late 80's and were the co is to log and did not
adjust. IBM for that matter is an equal example. Not all brains and a
lot of company arrogance. Good on them. Gives other users a chance to
buy much cheaper PC's with the same or in the case of IBM, much better
advances and qualities. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Question: What right does Microsoft have to demand
that Compaq not use Netscape at its personal browser? Compaq was
installing Internet Explorer on systems sold to customers, which should
have made Microsoft content, but it had adopted the internal company
standard of using Netscape which predated IE. Microsoft demanded that
this end.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>TM: All the right in the world. Simply because of the
fact that Compaq will have to meet the owners standards, in this
Microsoft standards (and not ever the other way around) if it wants to
gain a legal licensce from the owners of the software, weather this will
be Microsoft or for example, Ton Maas.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>If I notice that one of my copyrighted indicators is
being sold or being mis-used, I will also sue that person/co, since I
have not given out any written permission to anyone to do so or to make
any changes to it. It is my (intellectual) property/propriety and I am
the only one at right liberty to do with it as I see fit, eg and how I
pleases. If I notice for instance, that you want to use it in a weekly
magizine's software, for example for its weekly Hot tips-section,
be sure that I will take on action to prevend it or come to some sort of
arrangement, where "not using SuperChart software" for example could be
included in the license.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Question: Switching the context, if you think that
Microsoft has this right and you happen to not use Internet Explorer, do
you believe that Microsoft has the right to force you to switch to
Internet Explorer, and if you refuse, that it has the right to strip
Windows off your personal computer and electronically monitor your
system to insure that you never install Windows on your
system?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Microsoft is not forcing any one to use the Internet
Exploder. You can even easy write (f.i. in VB) your own browser.
Neither is it also forcing anyone to use its Microsoft Exchange
program, you know that very dreadfull program, its to simple
MsPaint or NotePad programs. You should feel lucky that these
programs come free with the OEM and OSR versions. You are at your own
liberty to use these programs or "overwrite" with other perhaps better
quality software programs. Also my ISP for instance was also giving its
users free licenses for the Netscape v1.0 to v3.0 browsers, whilst
anyone using different browsers were not supported. If Netscape had
forced these tactics onto my ISP is to be seen and basicaly irrellevent
to me, since I could confince the ISP that I didn't need their support,
eg since the IE browser wasn't giving me any problems at all and since
it seemingly fitted in with my OS, as though "it was there since I
bought my PC". And any browser upgrades (note for free as well) were
only large improvements, that much that I am still running a in
1997 for the last time installed Win95 OS version and that the latest
browser version, the IE5x, just -by itselve- made
the just-about-what-anyone-needed upgrade to and especially the by me
required upgrade to a "smaller version of Win98". I only miss out on
some file maintance tools and some extra window colouring schemes
(but then again who needs these). </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>The issue is not whether Microsoft has the right to
distribute and sell its products, nor is it that Microsoft owns the
rights to these products. No one has argued that it does not. The issue
that has been adjudicated, re-stated in different terms, is whether
Microsoft had the right to use its monopoly power to force people to buy
its product when they do not wish to do so. Microsoft was interfering
with the right of individuals and companies to freely choose other
products.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>TM: Ofcourse it has these rights since it is
protecting its property. Assume you don't have car-jacks in the States?
Where the rightfull owner of a car gets forced by a car-jacker to get
out of his/hers car, and the car-jacker takes off with the car. Now
how would you feel? Having protective tools with you, can prefent
you to loose your car, eg it is after all your rightfull pressious
property, aint it? Or should we say "Please do get
in......".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>In business life its not different, therefore
common sense (that is if you/company have any) teaches you and co's to
protect your/their property(ies).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Another example: IBM has an office application suite
of its own (Lotus) that it put on computers that it builds. Do you think
that Microsoft has the right to force IBM to replace its own Lotus
software with that of Microsoft Office?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>TM: IBM doesn't have to sell Microsoft software. They
have their own dreadfull OS, named OS2. IBM can than also install
their too simple and too basic Lotus program on their PCs too. PC
that do not work properly, an OS that doesn't work properly and an
office suite that no-one wants, nice combination to hit the All Time
Highs on the stockmarkets, ain't it? Remember too that you as
shareholder are part-owner of that company too? Unless US laws
differ from elsewhere.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>There are more examples that were proven during the
course of the trial, and they are all contained in the Findings of Fact
document. Personally, I want my right protected to freely choose
products and services as guaranteed by the law. I refuse the assertion
that any company has the right to coerce me to buy its
products.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>TM: You too have the right(not the obligation) to tell
the shopkeeper that you do not want Microsoft software. It is then up to
the shopkeeper to refund you for</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>missing the OS, which since its only a US $50 cost, he
most likely will not do. Tell him that you will go to the shop
next-door, and perhaps you can pursway the salesman. Else when you are
at home with your new PC, un-install Windows. Whatever you do after is
up to you, and not the reasponsability of Microsoft, the former
shopkeeper(s) or anyone lese, no it is all in your own hands, free and
at liberty to isntall other software, eg like the above mentioned OS2,
PCDOS, UNIX,LINUX, and several others that are around. That said, good
luck with it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Maybe if your information sources were not from press
accounts, then you might have a more circumspect understanding of
Microsoft's actions.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>TM: The whole issue here is not Microsoft, but the
arrogance of other co's and especially Governments(like said that holds
the largest amount of true monopolies)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>and their teamsters, the so called independent states.
If other co's want to be succesfull at something, then first they
should show and be an aggressive player, have intrest to develope new
things, want to change their inside attitudes, seek advise from
real professionals that can scan the company on its faults and employ
the right workers.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>If not, then they are take-over candidates, of which
formentioned companies will then be the victum. Besides all this
said, I couldn't give a heep if IBM, Compaq or whatever co for that
matter goes down, they call it upon themselves, and it is never due
to other co's that do all in their power and make the right efforts to
meet up with the above criterea. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT
size=2>Joe</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
</x-html>From ???@??? Mon Jan 17 09:43:28 2000
Return-Path: <majordom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Received: from listserv.equis.com (listserv.equis.com [204.246.137.2])
by purebytes.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA02510
for <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 01:27:32 -0800
Received: (from majordom@xxxxxxxxx)
by listserv.equis.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA09800
for metastock-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 00:18:35 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: listserv.equis.com: majordom set sender to owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx using -f
Received: from freeze.metastock.com (freeze.metastock.com [204.246.137.5])
by listserv.equis.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA09797
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 00:18:32 -0700
Received: from lh2.rdc1.bc.home.com (ioracle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [24.2.10.67])
by freeze.metastock.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA03405
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 00:29:31 -0700 (MST)
Received: from home.com ([24.65.16.176]) by lh2.rdc1.bc.home.com
(InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with ESMTP
id <20000117071420.SLXD1189.lh2.rdc1.bc.home.com@xxxxxxxx>
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 23:14:20 -0800
Message-ID: <3882C139.68B908DB@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 23:14:02 -0800
From: HHP <hhp@xxxxxxxx>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: system tester help
References: <200001142140.PAA32221@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Status:
Al,
For the entry formula:
(a) It all has to be relative to the current period.
(b) When looking for a highest high (or lowest low) you have to compare the
period in question with a window that is now closed, usually ending with the
preceding bar. You want yesterday's high to be higher than any of the
preceding 19 days.
C <= Ref(L,-1) AND
Ref(H,-1) > Ref(HHV(H,19),-2)
For the exit MetaSchlock won't let you reference the entry as such, so Ian's
suggestion of using BarsSince(entry formula) is good.
HHP
=========================.
Al Taglavore wrote:
> Formula gurus:
>
> I am trying to write a system test that will enter (short) if the close is
> less than or equal to the low of the previous period AND the previous
> period was the highest high value of the last 20 days. The sell short
> signal does not come after the highest high value of the last 20 days. I
> have written:
>
> C<Ref(L,-1)AND Ref(H,-1)>=(HHV(H,20)).
>
> I would like to exit if the close is higher than the previous day's high or
> on the third day of entry. I have written:
>
> C> Ref(H,-1)
> I cannot determine how to state the third day of entry.
>
> Where have I failed?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Al Taglavore
|