|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Whoa there! You don't get to end this
thread with challenging comments like that.
"...in the face of overwhelming<FONT
face=Arial> scientific evidence to the contrary" only proves a theory of mine
which states that Fib turning points can not be programmed - and thank god for
that, because I'm very happy that the vendors out there can't produce a
mechanical system to do what I do.
The same goes for your comment that it
"...clearly shows that RANDOM lines are just as valid". The
only thing it shows clearly is that you failed to model Fib as it is used in the
REAL world.
Now, if you'd rather have said that you'll choose
to believe what you believe in and I can do the same, THEN I'm prepared to stop
beating this dead horse. :)
Andrew
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">From:
Clyde Lee
To: <A
href="mailto:realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";
title=realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 10:21
PM
Subject: [RT] Fibo predictions--Don E.
Questions
Before I answer Don's questions I want to make it
clear that I think it is time
to end this discussion.
It is clear that those of you who wish to believe that
FIB lines drawn on a
chart have more validity to indicate turning points than
do randomly
drawn lines will continue to believe such in the face of
overwhelming
scientific evidence to the contrary.
Those of you who accept the scientific method should now
recognize
that a thorough study has been made and presented and
clearly shows
that RANDOM lines are just as valid for picking turning
points as FIB
lines.
I believe that any more on this would be beating a dead
horse.
Clyde
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
|