Hi Ray,
What we are supposed to be talking about is TA. You say:
<<<<.....remove the "veil of ignorance." This term originates from Public Policy & Management, and more specifically, from Rawlsian economics. By drawing the trendline through the low of yesterday, you're making a personal vantage statement. You see, you want the trendline not to be broken so you choose those points which are consistent with that supposition.>>>>>
Ray, I admire your cleverness. But seriously, why bring up Rawlsian economics here, mention a veil of ignorance, and claim that I made a "personal vantage statement"? You ought to know that such a shameless attempt to show off and seize the high psychological ground in a debate suggests insecurity in your argument. You're better than that! Ray, what I did was this: I printed the chart, took my clear ruler, put it down, and voila, five lows connected, including Thursdays. It's data; it's not personal.
<<<<<The basic problem with doing what you describe is you're going through extreme prices. This trendline is largely dependent upon a low made in the week of 9/4/98. That defeats the purpose of the trendline: to graphically display crowd behavior, not price extremes.>>>>>
Here you've got your sequences mixed up again. A trendline illustrates prices, from which we infer crowd behavior. It cannot be any other way. The "purpose" as you put it, is still at the mercy of the prices. The tendline I suggested connects five lows. Your original chart connected five too-- seven if you include the two lows that inconveniently pierce your line by several points and show up as lows on the alternative trendline I suggest. Now in your new chart you have decided to ignore the extremes and select only the weekly closes. Very good. Nice chart. But try looking at the four-year chart showing the *monthly* closes for THQI. Quel toupet! The long-term trendline is not broken with the recent drop.
My point is NOT that your TA is "wrong". You are showing data, which by itself cannot be wrong. My point is that you are asserting a clear situation when a unclear, contradictory situation is evident; you are showing an incomplete picture of TA, criticizing some suggestions for being selective but not recognizing the selectivity of your own.
Illustrative of your selectivity in other areas is your silence regarding the data I presented you that refuted the importance of THQI's 200 DMA. But hey, it surprised me too! |
