|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Tim,
The post was not intended for you . I just took the latest post and used
that as a reply avenue. I saw most of the posts and even if I had not seen
them you would be one of the persons I would not be referring to. Regarding
this particular subject now at hand , I do not know who is correct. But
that's not even the point.The point is that your posts are a perfect example
of how everyone should handle discussions . Professional, pointing out the
facts, etc. My post regarding Haythem was to point out some Unwarrented
attacks, not discussions or disagreements as in the current case. I should
have used a new email and subject. Sorry about that.
Have a Good Weekend ,
Dom
Original Message -----
From: "Timothy Morge" <tmorge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2001 11:35 PM
Subject: Re: [RT] Re: No evidence for lower NASDAQ yet
> Dom:
>
> I believe I was quite explicit when I apologized if I ruffled anyone's
> feathers--I certainly meant Haytham to be included in that and he has
> posted several times since I wrote the original post. And I have exchanged
> a few pleasant emails with Haytham on other matters. I doubt he sees my
> message as an attack. In fact, I believe he knew me well enough to know I
> wrote down a more accurate statistic for the pattern he was using and then
> thought better and erased it, since I cannot state it as fact without
> re-doing recent patterns and adding them in.
>
> I have no problem with anyone posting anything here. If someone on RT
finds
> it of use, that's ok with me. However, the statistic he posted on a chart
> was blatantly wrong. I didn't say his methods weren't meaningful and
didn't
> work for him. I said the statistic he wrote on a chart he posted here was
> wrong--not a little wrong, but a lot wrong.
>
> Then there was a follow up post by someone else stating the origin of the
> statistic quoted. That may or may not explain much to you and or Haytham.
> Again, I posted what I know for certain. I did not go on to post a
> percentage off the top of my head. I cannot and will not do that. It is
not
> how I trade. I do not know how Haytham checks things like an author's
> statistics; in this case, I doubt he checked it himself. I also said here
> in another post that perhaps the other techniques Haytham added to the
> analysis may be contributing to what he and others see as his success to
> time the market [Don't mis-read what I just typed. I did not endorse
> Haytham's methods or abilities; nor did I defame them].
>
> This is about a statistic that was posted as a FACT. At least where I come
> from, FACTS are not loose and free. 5 percent is seldom mistaken for 50
> percent. I assure you I would have called DH or Mark aka Research or Clyde
> Lee if they had posted something as a "statistic" or well known "fact" if
I
> knew them to be incorrect.
>
> If we can't point out errors and mis-statements here when people post
> charts and comments, tell me now. I'll go back to writing and posting
> elsewhere. The traders are not as well spoken as they are here, but they
> allow a free exchange of ideas and a dispute amongst honest men and women
> is always a part of an free exchange of ideas.
>
> I went to undergraduate and graduate school at the University of Chicago.
> We have two things there that always made me stop and think: a memorial to
> the birthplace of the atomic age and a stone arch all new students must
> constantly walk through on their way to first year classes that says, "
and
> the truth shall set you free..." That was worth the price of admission.
>
> Best,
>
> Tim Morge
>
>
> At 11:14 PM 5/26/2001 -0400, you wrote:
> >Since I have been attending to other business matters for some time now
and
> >have not had ample time to read with some continuity the posts, I would
like
> >to expound on my previous post wherein I came to the defense of Haytham.
( I
> >took some time today to read, scan, delete etc.)
> >I have had several conversations with Haytham and although he uses many
> >indicators that very different as well as very complicated , I have found
> >him to be very accurate at market reversal points( He refers to them as
> >turning points). This is very different then tops and/or bottoms. The
market
> >can stay at tops and/or bottoms (overbought/oversold) for some time
before
> >heading down or up. A worthwhile move is caught when the market
terminates
> >its top or bottom stay and moves in the opposite direction. This is the
best
> >time to enter the trade. Needless to say the time frame of the trader
will
> >be an important factor to each trader. A very short term trader may make
one
> >or several trades per day. However, he will use the knowledge of the
> >direction to short strenght when coming down from a top and cover the
short
> >when his trading style deems appropriate.Vice versa on bottoms. Since I
have
> >not been doing my own homework on technical analysis, I have relied on
> >Haytham for market timing during this busy period of time for me. At my
> >request, Haytham was kind enough to keep me informed regarding market
> >timing. In the short time frame involved he has been right on the money.
My
> >prediction is that , even though I have only had a few conversations with
> >him and the market timing signals period has not been extensive, I am
very
> >sure that he will become a well recognized authority on market timing
when
> >his track record is confirmed with the passage of time. Haytham
methodology
> >is not easily understood. However, that should not be a reason for
attacks
> >on his posts. Incidently, by the tone of some of his posts ,one might
come
> >to the conclusion that he not exactly a nice guy. Actually he is a very
nice
> >guy IMO. I am also sure that the tone of his posts are due to some of
the
> >unwarranted attacks . The attacks should be replaced with a dignified
> >exchange of questions and answers.This will benefit all on the list.
> >Have a Nice Week End,
> >Dom
> >
> > --- Original Message -----
> >From: <H.Albizem@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2001 4:34 PM
> >Subject: [RT] Re: No evidence for lower NASDAQ yet
> >
> >
> > > --- In realtraders@xxxx, Timothy Morge <tmorge@xxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Haytham:
> > > >
> > > > Look, I apologize to you and anyone else that may have offended
> > > because I
> > > > was blunt.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > >
> > > > Tim Morge
> > >
> > > Tim,
> > >
> > > It is ok, I know you don't mean it. I meant to ask you of what do you
> > > mean by "It ain't even close to single digits...in fact...well, let's
> > > just say
> > > it ain't in that ballpark."
> > >
> > > Do you have diffrent statistics?, you wanted to say something then
> > > you backed off.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Haytham
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> >
> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|