|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
John,
I think his question of
is "where is the Moderator"
was an appropriate
request.
I'm being objective<FONT face=Arial
size=2>.
Adrian
posted his "opinion" based
on his experience but
no research or facts
to back that experience
up of what he "thought"
the research "should"
show in past bear markets.
Clyde posted research of
data and then later
posted reseach of the
period Adrian requested.
Adrian did not like those facts
but didn't provide any kind
of research
whatsoever to disprove them.
Just
lashed out in a very
harsh manner because
it didn't agree with
what the research "should"
show according to his
perception based only
on experience; no
research.
My last post on this subject.
Rhonda
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
----- Original Message -----
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">From:
John Cappello
To: <A title=delta88343@xxxxxxx
href="mailto:delta88343@xxxxxxx";>delta88343@xxxxxxx ; <A
title=realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
href="mailto:realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 11:42
AM
Subject: [RT] Adrian/Clyde : One Day
Rally or Start of New Trend
To List:In defense of Adrian and
Clyde:Adrian has always been rather tart and prickly in making many of
his points. That does not mean his observations and points are wrong. He
is just Adrian and I for one have just grown to accept him as is.To
suggest "where is the Moderator" in this case is not in my opinion
appropriate. If that were the case, Adrian would have been gone long
ago. He does make valid points though often in a harsh way.Clyde
has always been one of the most generous contributors to the list. He is
not perfect and who among us is.His enthusiasm oft times gushes over and
that leads him on to further this list in sometimes controversial issues.
I have had disagreements with him publicly and privately but he means well
and does his best. He also does respond to positive critiques. Clyde is a
big guy and knows how to shoot back if he thinks he has been
maligned.I have learned a bit from both.My purpose in posting
this is to put it in some kind of perspective so this "taking sides" can
end and we can get on with it.John------------------
Reply Separator --------------------Originally From:
delta88343@xxxxxxxSubject: Re: [RT] Re: One Day Rally or Start of New
TrendDate: 07/27/2002 11:22amn a message dated 7/27/02 5:52:43
AM Eastern Daylight Time, apitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:This is
exactly the type of arrogance and negativity that is destroying this
list. Though what AP is asking "may" be valid observations and
questions, it's the manner in which they are presented which should
not be allowed for this list to maintain its integrity.As I
always tell my managenet staff with regards to how they speak to the
general employee base, which pays their wages through their efforts,
it's not what one says it's how you say it.AP, you need to get
off your high horse and simply ask your questions and present your
opinions and observations in a positive and constructive
manner.Just one persons opinion...I only speak for
myself.Are there any moderators here? Apparently not.
> > I'm sorry Clyde, I made an incorrect assumption
that I was dealing with a > group of traders here that> were
above average in intelligence and would know to apply apples and >
apples. My point in saying your> analysis was flawed was
reference to the obvious fact that the current > market environment
has NOTHING> to do with the environment that existed for the past 20
odd years. If you > wish to compare like with like> you need
to compare REAL bear markets with the current activity. The US
> has had NO bear markets in> the past 20 years. The only
obvious ones are 1929-33 and the 70's. All of > this seems obvious
to me.> Its great to have the ability to take some simple notion and
crunch it > through 1000's of examples and tests> but
ultimately its like using a sledgehammer to put a nail in the wall.
> Extremely ineffective and will lead> everyone to wrong
conclusions. There is only ONE proper way and it involves > an
understanding and > appreciation of markets, people, economics and how
it all interacts. > Markets AREN'T simple, they are >
incredibly complex, and any attempt to apply one dimensional analysis
> across a whole raft of environments> will be futile. Its
like saying the best moving average will be the least > square fit
line over the past 100 years!!> > By eliminating al that
is incorrect Clyde, it brings everyone one step > closer to the
truth. Wasn't their a famous> genius who once said it you
eliminate the impossible, you are left with > whats
possible?> > So my suggestion, even though it went over
your head, is to once again > suggest that you analyse where
6%> updays occurred in GENUINE sustained bear trends. i.e
1929-33, 1970-74 and > the NASDAQ 2000-current.> I'm sure
your readers would be more informed with whatever is discovered.
> I haven't done the work, but my> experience would suggest
there were quite a few of them, and ALL except the > very last one
had no bullish> implications whatsoever.> >
To
unsubscribe from this group, send an email
to:realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxYour
use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <A
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/";>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
Click here to find your contact lenses!
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.
|