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 : Stock Attack -- A Complete Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Doo who wrote (42010)	2/5/2001 1:39:00 PM
From: AllansAlias	Respond to of 42787

LOL. I think it might be the infamous Wedgewood Place Setting pattern. -g Seriously, H&S, rectangles, wedge or no wedge -- it sometimes even gets to be too much for me, a pattern friendly guy.

To: Doo who wrote (42010)	2/5/2001 2:08:15 PM
From: donald sew	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42787

Jeffery, If you want to express a point, I would prefer to stick to specifics. I was specificly addressing the issue of completely ignoring the volume issue on the wedge. Im NEVER NEVER NEVER said I am sure on the RECTANGLE, so if Im wrong on the RECTANGLE Im sure some will shove it in my face, but that was not the issue. The issue was ignoring SPECIFICLY again SPECIFICLY the volume issue, and then making a strong call without giving a reason for ignoring the volume issue. I thought I was very clear that it was not an issue of whether it was a WEDGE or RECTANGLE, but an issue concerning the quality of the analysis. I just dont think that ignoring basic principles is a sign of a good analysis. But if anyone wants to turn this into he was right or wrong, well I guess they were not able to understand my issue. That wedge still could work and I never ignored that possibilty, but even if it does work and the NAZ tank, the ANALYSIS was unsatisfactory. Now if one gave a reason/support as to why it is a valid BEARISH WEDGE on rising volume then that could make that analysis sufficient. Again this is not an issue of right or wrong - my issue was on the QUALITY of the analysis. And the RECTANGLE was on the XLK, so why are you asking to draw line on the NDX?

To: Doo who wrote (42010)	2/5/2001 2:08:15 PM
From: donald sew	Respond to of 42787

Jeffery, If you want to express a point, I would prefer to stick to specifics. I was specificly addressing the issue of completely ignoring the volume issue on the wedge. Im NEVER NEVER NEVER said I am sure on the RECTANGLE, so if Im wrong on the RECTANGLE Im sure some will shove it in my face, but that was not the issue. The issue was ignoring SPECIFICLY again SPECIFICLY the volume issue, and then making a strong call without giving a reason for ignoring the volume issue. I thought I was very clear that it was not an issue of whether it was a WEDGE or RECTANGLE, but an issue concerning the quality of the analysis. I just dont think that ignoring basic principles is a sign of a good analysis. But if anyone wants to turn this into he was right or wrong, well I guess they were not able to understand my issue. That wedge still could work and I never ignored that possibilty, but even if it does work and the NAZ tank, the ANALYSIS was unsatisfactory. Now if one gave a reason/support as to why it is a valid BEARISH WEDGE on rising volume then that could make that analysis sufficient. Again this is not an issue of right or wrong - my issue was on the QUALITY of the analysis. And the RECTANGLE was on the XLK, so why are you asking to draw lines on the NDX chart?