<<Morgan, the operative word in your initial claim is "will". "A technical bounce from an oversold position WILL only be fodder for more shorting.">>
Just how would you like me to express my opinion? Obviously, I am expressing an opinion. Any forward looking statement has uncertainty built into it. To focus on that aspect, is childish - otherwise, why not go like this:
Assuming the sun rises tomorrow, and nuclear war doesn't break out, I speculate that NITE might trade up (assuming that Nasdaq computers don't break down and all trading is halted) etc., etc., etc.
When I have a high degree of confidence, I use the word WILL - but you have to look at the context. Sure, if I say "tomorrow NITE will trade on Nasdaq" - that already has a presumption built into it - what if trading is halted for all stocks? Does that mean that from now on the only way to express oneself is in absurd qualifying statements?
I bypass the obvious disclaimers, as they seem to me self-evident. When I feel a high degree of confidence, I use the word "will" - and when I don't, I use 'maybe' or 'perhaps' as when I mentioned 40-42 as a possible target. I feel a high degree of confidence that a technical bounce can safely be shorted - what's wrong with expressing it without silly qualifiers that are not applicable in common speech?
I have an opinion, it is that NITE ****WILL**** not have a technical bounce that is followed through with a sustained rise. It is perhaps not your opinion. Why can't I express it? And why is it 'emotionalism' to express it? In fact it would be stylistically awkward to say : In my opinion only, nite might have a technical bounce without a follow up. How about: it is my opinion that the sun *might* rise up tomorrow? Happy? This is idiotic. From the fact that I am writing a post, it is obvious that I am expressing opinions, not reporting future facts (since you cannot do that even about the sun rising tomorrow). Once we understand that, my statement is very natural. What do you think NITE *will* do? Have you never heard this question? Or only "What do you think NITE *might* do?" - silly word games. It was perfectly natural, for me to express myself the way I did - not 'emotional'.
<<Comments such as the following do constitute "emotionalism" by any textbook definition:
_____________________________________________________________
"I'm afraid the goose is cooked for NITE"
"NITE is a goner for a long time. ">>
What a load of malarky! By what "textbook" definition?????? Your textbook??? Who do you think you are dealing with - a highschool dropout who is going to be impressed by your claims of a "textbook"???
I am expressing an opinion that I see as justified by the action on the ground. I have written many long posts with grounds for my opinions. So, to say that it is "emotionalism" is bizarre!
I observe a fight, between two boxers, say - Muhammad Ali and Joe Sh*t The Ragman. It is the first round. Joe has been knocked out, his nose is broken, he is lying on the floor and not breathing. I say "Joe is a goner for a long time" - wow, says Herchel - textbook emotionalism!
LOL! What the hell are you trying to pull Mr. Rubin? I declare your contention that my expressing opinions such as above about NITE is "textbook emotionalism" to be balderdash!
This is NOT going to wash, you'll have to do a hell of a lot better.
Are you telling me, that if someone sees the action in a stock and expresses an opinion, such as "NITE is a goner for a long time" - that this is somehow *necessarily* an emotional statement? How presumptuous of you! What if it is justified by the facts? Or are you saying one can't make ANY forward looking observations or opinions about a stock? RUBBBISH!
The fact is, that whether a statement is emotionalism or not is a subjective judgement, to be evaluated according to facts and community standards. The only measure by which to judge that is as follows:
If a statement is disproportionate to the event - this can constitute emotionalism. Example: X has a small headache, but he says "I'm dying, this is cancer". If it IS CANCER, he is accurate, not 'emotional'.
Thus, Mr. Herschel Rubin, I look at the facts of how NITE has been trading, and the general market as I see it going forward, and I proclaim:
<<NITE is a goner for a long time.>>
Is this 'emotionalism' - only if my judgement of the facts is grossly wrong. AND WHO IS GOING TO MAKE THAT JUDGEMENT?????? YOU??????
I beg to differ. YOU ARE NOT THE FINAL ARBITER OF WHAT THESE FACTS MEAN.
I see my judgement as sound, based on my experience and the facts as I see them. You see them differently. Fine. But that does not make my statements 'textbook emotionalism'. Nor yours. Why do you presume to say that I am wrong? If I am not wrong, then I was ACCURATE, not expressing "emotionalism". Or are you claiming that nobody can make any assessments about the future of a stock? In that case, trading could not exist - and guess what, not investing either. LOL, what idiocy!
You have seen 'overconfidence', 'market eating alive' - blah, blah, blah - what is this all about? You think I am overconfident? Fine. I think I am not. Now what? Pleas spare me your little musings regarding my fate in the markets - such musings are stupid. You don't know me, nor my record. I don't try to speculate about your record, or your fate in the market.
What hypocrisy are you referring to? At the time Norris posted his junk, I immediately objected to it as wrong, and provided arguments. I also expressed my opinions, and thus far, my record has been pretty good. I also gave grounds for my opinions. If you think I am wrong - POINT OUT WHERE IN MY ANALYSIS AM I WRONG. Just as I did with Norris. But to say that because I post my opinion, that is somehow wrong, and 'hypocrisy' because it is in *YOUR* judgement "emotionalism" is arrant nonsense. Tell me where I am wrong in my analysis Mr. Rubin? Subjective chatter about my 'emotionalism' - the veracity of which depends on what is YOUR jugdement of what constitutes emotionalism, is worthless.
I express opinions. I back them up with analysis. That's all.
<<But although you may have a fine trading record (I do also, BTW), neither you nor I cannot predict the future ****[ho-ho-ho, let us hear it for the obvious truism; yes, but we try to anticipate it, otherwise trading or investing for that matter would make no sense]****. I took exception to your "dismal post of the day" simply because you made forward-looking statements that were inappropriately overconfident ****[says who???? YOU???? Sorry, but who appointed you the final arbiter of what is inappropriate overconfidence?]**** (how do you know about all your "sky-is-falling" claims?) - the answer is you don't. ***[which statements? I have written many posts, and therein, you will find the grounds on which I base my opinions - you pick the opinion, and I'll supply the reasoning behind it; you may disagree with my reasoning - but it is not your place to say that my posting of any scenario is by itself wrong]***>>
<<(how do you know about all your "sky-is-falling" claims?) - the answer is you don't.>>
Which claims specifically? I can easily supply reasons for my opinions. Understand this - obvious as it may seem, it appears to escape you, hence the source of your confusion:
"You don't know" - not to get philosophical, but how do you use "know" here? In the Kantian sense? In a heuristic sense? Do you mean, like in a mathematical sense of 1+1=2 proof (B.Russell and A.N.Whitehead took several volumes of Pricipia Mathematica to prove it)? You are not assuming the stance of a radical skepticism a la Hume? I didn't think so. It would be absurd to. Nor would I make such absurd claims. Thus, I dismiss such a point like "no one knows anything about the market" - as it is obvious, since no one can absolutely predict the future.
However, in what is called "community standards - common speech" (if you are desperate for the philosophical background to this, I refer you to Wittgenstein) - we don't use the term "know" like that. When someone says - I know tomorrow I will have an opportunity to short a stock - he need not say: "assuming the sun rises, and assuming x,y,z to the power of n, then ---- I will short the stock"
So, if I you don't mean it in a philosophical sense - and it would be absurd to claim otherwise, you mean "know" by the community standards as they are ordinarily used when talking about the stock market - that MUST in fact be the case, otherwise neither trading nor investing would be possible.
Whatever claim I make, I can back up, to satisfactory community standards - not philosophical ones that have no bearing. You may disagree - and then you must supply counterarguments... but to say - 'you don't know' is groundless. You are not the final arbitrer.
<<You are correct that I didn't acknowledge that you attempted to answer my question "How are you so sure there is a lot of shorting going on?" I just wasn't satisfied with your answer and even you said it is speculation.>>
Well, again, as is your habit, you failed to supply the reasons why you weren't satisfied. You aren't satisfied - too bad, I am satisfied (yes, it is speculation, and not 100% certain, but high enough so that I am pretty confident - I've seen enough evidence that leads me to believe that the statistical probability of that is very high - and in trading we always deal with probability). But regardless of whether you were satisfied, you should have said WHY you were not satisfied - and not acted as if I did not address your points.
It is not enough to cast aspersions and issue accusations - you have to have arguments.
Sloppy, sloppy. This is not going to be a walk in the park. My request stands: please be meticulous in your arguments; thus far, it has been a very poor performance, and I will nail it every time - count on it.
Morgan
|
