Art,
Interesting....
"...However, when I noted in late Jan. that long term technicals had broken down & stock was headed to at least 6 1/2 for next support level, I was castigated by those in love with this stock (notice how most people here just hate NORMAN; I find him entertaining)...."
As I recall, Art, you and Hugh were having a civil disagreement over the importance of the 200 DMA. I believe that James was there the whole time, speaking for a lot of us, when he urged you and the other TAs to discuss your different interpretation of the charts. At no point did anybody "castigate" you for predicting the decline. Now that you have chosen a slice of time that shows you were correct, I find your positioning interesting. But as you yourself said, you were just playing the probabilities, right? Now, anybody here can take a different segment of time to show another point of view, but that's really a waste of my time and yours.
We are all working with incomplete information here. None of us are certain of the way our constantly-being-refined assumptions will actually turn out. Some rely solely on TA and some rely solely on FA. Most of us here, I suspect, use both FA and TA in varying degrees. In my opinion, that zero-sum TA OR FA debate is a loser's game best played out on the other boards.
So, keep your interpretation of the charts coming, man. It is definitively welcome. Now, as for Norman, well.....let's agree to disagree there.
Gus
P.S. check out the next post. |
