|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Hello Tom,
You should realize that most of the pricks on this list have nothing better to do except try to destroy anything that is put on this list,especially if it turns out to be good info. These blowhards are full of themselves and who knows probable
don't trade like they want people to think they do. Like you say they a wasting good energy over nothing. I would not dare let these people know how successful of a SP trader I am. I don't give one fat fart who or what these assholes think. To
all that will read this, I do not know Tom or have any of his material. You guys need to look for real jobs, you have to much time on your hands!!
Expect to Win,
Neil
Tom DeMark wrote:
> Michael Stewart wrote:
> >
> > Tom,
> >
> > looks like you might have nailed the low - wonder if you will call the high
> > ?
>
> THANK YOU for your kind words, michael, however, my memo was intended
> for review ONLY by my son. yes, you are correct the projection made
> yesterday for the S and P low for today was indeed 1343.90--- a MERE one
> tick less than the ACTUAL low of 1344.00. Also you are correct that the
> projected high of 1362.90 which was also made yesterday was a MERE 4
> ticks from the ACTUAL high of 1362.50. Obviously, NO ONE is capable of
> forecasting the future with success but the odds of someone
> statistically predicting a trading day's low within 1 tick and the same
> day's high within 4 ticks is not incredible if one has both LUCK and a
> few time-tested techniques to support the forecasts. it's amazing that
> despite this report's unintentional delivery yesterday to this forum,
> some of the members choose to attack the messenger--me. the market did
> perform just as described but this was not intended as my recommendation
> to the forum members since they were NOT my audience. surprisingly, one
> member did respond to a member by the name of Seth to notify him that he
> did in fact traded 25 S and Ps based upon the forecast--although it
> would have been profitable, i'm sorry to read that since it was
> certainly not my intention. I HAVE INCLUDED AT THE CONCLUSION OF THIS
> LETTER PROOF OF THE ABOVE MARKET STATEMENTS, NEVERTHELESS, JUST TO
> PREVENT THESE SAME INDIVIDUALS FROM TWISTING THE FACTS ONCE AGAIN.
>
> in retrospect, it amazes me how much wasted venom, energy, and diatribe
> some of these potentially valuable members of this group exert. a
> chronology from the misguided e-mail to my son is reported blow. note
> how it involves the same individuals who have usurped control of your
> forum to elevate their small statures and large egos.
>
> NOT UNEXPECTEDLY, mark brown was first to attack and smear, not
> necessarily the content of mymessage since it was uncertain of its
> accuracy, rather he chose to critique my motivation which only i know,
> not he. soon afterwards "pete sp broker" was quick to fire off "Dont
> start this SHIT again, asshole.....", then a couple of members--chesler
> for one--attempted to draw a connection or a diabolical purpose
> implicating sam tennis--the creator of ez language--manning stoller--a
> quality researcher and individual of high integrity--and me. for what
> purpose i dont know. i have never met manning stoller and have only
> spoken to him many, many years ago on the telephone. i have read his
> articles and am impressed with his market savvy, research experience,
> and knowledge. as for sam tennis--i havent spoken to sam in many, many
> months but i can tell you one thing he's an exceptional programmer and
> individual and certainly no Machiavelli. Each possess qualities many of
> this forum's critics could only hope for and something these critics
> certainly lack. how could some of these members extrapolate from an
> innocent response i sent to manning ulterior motives is beyond me.
> nevertheless two members accused me of using the excuse that i
> inadvertently sent a response to manning to the group when it was the
> message to my son which I admittdly misdirected.
>
> some character by the name of jim paris thought he was a real detective
> by proving the routing to manning and the omega users group were done
> surreptitiously and simultaneously--i never denied this, or ever would
> i, because i intended to do that. he(JIM) ruefully wrote:
> Fwd: your mailing list
> Resent-Date:
> Fri, 9 Apr 1999 08:04:00 -0700
> Resent-From:
> omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> Date:
> Fri, 9 Apr 1999 11:01:48 EDT
> From:
> JParris@xxxxxxx
> To:
> tomdemark@xxxxxxxx
> CC:
> omega-list@xxxxxxxxx
> "Perhaps you do not realize how transparent this tactic is. I am
> forwarding it
> back to you to give you some perspective. Why do you have to get a nice
> guy like Manning involved in your spam schemes? *I am not copying the
> whole list on this*. It could give other people ideas and that could
> really jam up your already malfunctioning e-mail."
>
> he immediately sent this message to the entire group contradicting what
> he wrote. i defy this purported sleuth to prove ulterior motives with
> the correspondence I intended for my son. then just to antagonize me he
> sends a copy to the group. he certainly doesn't have time for market
> research or trading, does he? but he had time for the following
> volleys----
>
> Tom
>
> I am sorry. I accidentally *did* copy the list when I forwarded your
> e-mail
> back to you. I meant to send it to my brother.
>
> Jim
>
> You believe me - don't you ?? *****Unfortunately, jim i do believe you
> even though circumstances suggest otherwise.i'll give even you the
> benefit of the doubt.
>
> in defense of jim, alan myers had the same anlysis regarding my e-mail
> to manning but once again the error was my communication with my son
> which no one can dispute.just like jim he claimed my goal was to spam
> and sell products--they can't seem to get it that I HAVE ABSOLUTELY
> NOTHING TO SELL.
>
> then this individual by the name of phil lane who likes to imply feats
> of market greatness takes his swing "Well I had some good trades too,
> but I'm not coming on here with a 3 page post to brag about it. Even by
> accident. I thought we had gotten rid of the talking heads." Phil,
> doesn't understand. whereas he may boast after the fact of his assumed
> accomplishments, i did not boast and my work was IN ANTICIPATION of the
> next day's trading--something a true trader and technician are trained
> to do. my visit was inadevertent and if he transfers his streak of
> stubbornness and boasfulness to the markets, the market will certainly
> make him humble if it hasn't already by now. i actually wonder whether
> he or the others of his ilk even trade or even have time to trade given
> their preoccupation with empty banter and accusation.
>
> THINK SENSIBLY for once, would i be crazy enough to intentionally send
> something to this group in advance of trading? fortunately the forecast
> was in fact correct but i was attacked and ridiculed for other reasons
> which are empty. despite what some of your members may say.i am not
> selling the members anything and have never sold them anything. in the
> past, i was merely an observer of this group, hoping to glean some
> market wisdom. that goal is forever undermined by the viciousness of the
> few who ridicule poor contributors. thank god my instructors never
> humiliated me the way members are on this site.
>
> then there are the apparent "lackeys" who express the same venom as
> their presumed heroes but are empty-headed. assuming as i said my notice
> to this group was inadvertent, why does neil weintraub fantasize my
> intention to incite an intraday trading rebellion within the ranks of
> the members...HE WROTE "Tom one chapter does not make a book. The fact
> is" staying long this market and not day trading would have the right
> thing to do>" Remember it is called Trade Station not investment station
> and I believe that Omega does not even trade or have a model
> portfolio.You do the public a diservice by promoting day trading, since
> 89% lose most of their money.Further, your signals are no better than
> flipping a coin. Sometimes they work sometimes they don't. Or as the
> commercial says,"sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't."
> How do you feel today?** i never promoted day trading, weintraub,
> because this e-mail wasn't intended for you and how do you feel. does
> attacking me make you feel bigger or better.
>
> obviously, content and substance are not the goals of some of the
> purported research geniuses of this site. given the errant message's
> prediction of a projected market low today one tick from the actual and
> the projected high 4 ticks from the actual. NOT ONE has asked for any
> explanation. a true researcher would be inquisitive. my appetite for
> this knowledge was so voracious that had it been food i'd be many pounds
> heavier. this is a research site. why aren't people asking how and why?
> i know why people aren't sharing because of the potential of attack and
> ridicule.
>
> I CHALLENGE YOU GUYS TO REDIRECT YOUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THE INTENDED
> GOALS OF THIS FORUM. MAKE IT AN EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE FOR THE NEW
> TRADERS AND EXPERIENCED ONES AS WELL. CONTRIBUTE AND MAKE THIS A
> VALUABLE SITE. I HAVE A FULL-TIME JOB IN THE INVESTMENT BUSINESS AND
> LOVE FOLLOWING THE MARKETS JUST LIKE MOST OF THE MEMBERS OF THIS GROUP.
> I WOULD NOTHING MORE THAN TO HAVE A SITE TO SHARE MY EXPERIENCE AND
> RESEARCH WITH YOU AS I'M SURE OTHERS WOULD AS WELL. BUT TO BE ATTACKED
> AND ACCUSED OF HAVING ULTERIOR MOTIVES DOES NOTHING TO ACCOMPLISH THE
> COLLECTIVE GOAL OF EFFECTIVE RESEARCH AND PROFITABLE TRADING. TO BE
> FRIGHTENED OF RIDICULE FOR THE SAKE OF A SIMPLE QUESTION IS
> UNPRODUCTIVE. OBVIOUSLY, THIS WAS DESIGNED TO BE AN OMEGA SITE BUT
> RATHER THAN WREAK HAVOC UPON THEIR PERSONNEL, WHY NOT INVITE THEM TO
> PARTICIPATE.
>
> MY MISGUIDED COMMENTS SENT YESTERDAY AFTERNOON WERE:
>
> > >tj, any comments,suggestions, or questions would be appreciated. thanks.
> > >
> > >4-8-99 Thursday comments for Friday
> > >
> > >The market is finally making it to my 1363 objective level. Had it been
> > >accomplished today, the upside would have likely been revised to
> > >1430-1432—another 5.56%.{ACTUAL HIGH TODAY 1362.50}
> > >
> > >Preliminarily, if the market opens below 1360 tomorrow and then trades
> > >above 1362.90, then it would be a sell and I encourage you to get timing
> > >down with 1 minute sell.{1 MINUTE "13" CAME AT EXACT HIGH} The market should be up in the morning and itshould be followed by a pullback which will be succeeded by another rally to higher highs just about your lunchtime(12:45-1:45est). .....
> > >
> > >The differential says higher high tomorrow than today before a lower
> > >low.{TODAY'S HIGH WAS IN FACT ABOVE YESTERDAY'S HIGH}.........
> > >
> > >The stocks which were recommended as breakouts yesterdsay similar to LU
> > >last week—JPM, IBM, etc.—all followed through today.
> > >
> > >MO and DAL fell short of their buy signals by only 1 tick each.
> > >
> > >Numerous other stocks on the list such as QTRN, AEE, AFFX, KEA gave
> > >signals which worked. MU was a buy into weakness and performed only for
> > >a short period of time. KEA could be explosive like PER upside—it has
> > >the same pattern.
> > >
> > >The WLA "13" buy has worked well since being confirmed and the entry was
> > >postponed preventing opportunity costs.
> > >
> > >The projected high and low for tomorrow are 1369.70 and 1343.90{ACTUAL LOW 1344.00} and the momentum value is 6.30.
>
> > >Although I have repeatedly warned of a sell signal and presented
> numerous upside price objectives along the way... Two months ago, I
> calculated a 1362.90{ACTUAL HIGH 1362.50] objective and believed it to
> be the ultimate market high. ...........current proposition is certainly
> incongruous for a market high tomorrow.> >Consequently, let me give this
> scenario as a alternative possibility.> >Tomorrow, provided the S and P
> opens below 1360(most definitely 1362.80)> >and then trades above
> 1362.90, the price objective will have been fulfilled. The fact that the
> market had rallied significantly off its lows today implies that this
> breakout above 1363.00 is "disqualified".Therefore the market should
> fail to close above 1363.00 tomorrow.[FACT}
>
> THIS IS NOT MEANT TO IMPLY THAT THIS FORECAST WAS FOR ANYBODY'S
> CONSUMPTION OTHER
> THAN MY SON'S. PAST PERFORMANCE IS CERTAINLY NOT INDICATIVE OF FUTURE
> RESULTS. THERE IS A RISK OF SUBSTANTIAL LOSS TRADING ANY MARKETS.
>
> > >
|