Wanna Re..You don't happen to recall the charter of this thread, specifically the part that deals with personal attacks, do you? <<<<<<<<<<<
P:ersonal attack?????? What personal attack? I called your excuse lame. I didn't say you were lame brained, or that you were an idiot; I just said your excuse was lame, which isn't personal; and you responded with this,<<<<< "You make yourself look more clueless than you are accusing of me." ; which is a personal attack because you used the word you. But, don't worry. I have no intention of crying to Mani, like this other crybaby does when he can't handle an argument.
If your so experienced in the matter, why don't you show it, instead of throwing out insults, and pretending to know what you're talking about. <<<<<<<<
Shouldn't you be taking your own advice; and I am not talking just about your response in this post. I am talking about your previous two posts; which are.
Looking for patterns in old graphs is a poor way to invest. While history can teach us many lessons, it sure couldn't predict the crash in the market between late last year and now, so I doubt it can predict an AMD comeback over the next few months.
And
I should have specified that looking at old graphs in the way TGPTNDR was suggesting runs the risk of oversimplifying the data, which will probably lead to a wrong result. I am not saying that there is no way to gain investment information by looking at old graphs, because I am well aware of the concept of Technical Analysis. His previous statement was, "Try laying the last 4 years October 1 to January 1 charts over each other to see if there's a trend," and it was meant to suggest that AMD would have an upturn in the stock over the next few months. I disagree with this, because in the absence of other data, you can't rely on that trend line. A real technical analysis would use much more data. Understand?
Wanna, please note that in your first post, you said nothing about the way TPGNDR was doing his TA. You simply blasted TA as useless; which infers to me you know nothing about TA. In the second post, you blamed TPGNDR as the root cause of your statement, because TPGNDR wasn't doing it right according to you. How do you know TPGNDR needed more data, when TPGNDR didn't exclude or include any data in his statement? Within an hour in your own mind, you went from knowing nothing about TA, to knowing so much about TA, that you knew, just on the limited info. TPGNDR gave you, that TPGNDR was doing it wrong, and you were right. And you are asking the members of this thread to believe your excuse? Get real.
If your so experienced in the matter, why don't you show it, instead of throwing out insults, and pretending to know what you're talking about.<<<<<<<<<<<
In your previous post, you asked us if we understood your excuse. All I did was tell you what I understood. If you don't like the answers, you shouldn't ask the questions. |
