Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : DAYTRADING Fundamentals -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TraderAlan who wrote (9858)	8/16/2000 7:40:41 PM
From: gaj	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18137

alan - if you want to talk about gurus, you can mention blodgett without 'offending' (because others have mentioned it). i realise that it's not necessarily the same direction, nor would you be the first, but you can use him as a specific example (ie. if you tagged along initially, you raked in $$; if you bought this year, you're down 50%) and then take that and say "gurus in TA aren't any different".... just a thought.... - bob

To: TraderAlan who wrote (9858)	8/16/2000 9:10:03 PM
From: davealex	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 18137

You can tell them what a bum I am Alan. Besides telling them what a bum Brandon is (which should be highly effective on its own :-), just make fun of them. It is a ridiculous concept. Talk about how inane it would be for you yourself to try to "claim" a pattern of prices that has existed ever since people traded ag products in Chaldea and Ur. Hell, talk about the Japanese rice traders and candlesticks and how one of their ghosts may someday come to take Nison out because he used the term Marubozu. Obviously, you can name it with a mnemonic device and call it a Turtle or Adam and Eve, but no one "owns" the patterns themselves. That being said, saying that [insert mnemonic device here] pattern is similar to the [insert "claimed" pattern here] and having the "inventor" of that pattern lay claim to it and threaten you in some vague way is as ridiculous as saying that Chrysler can't call their product an "automobile" because Ford used the term first. That ought to make sense to the majority of participants. And for the "claimants" themselves, if they want to get litigious about it, you could quietly let them know that their argument is weak enough to get tossed out in a blink and they had better think long and hard about what they actually want to accomplish (besides being viewed as a complete whiner who must resort to that sort of thing because obviously the rest of their life/career plan is not working out; information travels fast these days...) Now as for me, I hereby lay claim to Adam and Eve, so you better stop using it before I pull a Bible out on you. :-) Dave