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 II - A Complete Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul Shread who wrote (17427)	8/31/2001 10:05:44 AM
From: TechTrader42	Respond to of 52237

That's the real question with all indicators, even the notoriously unreliable CI's. The CI's were so unreliable in the past that they were actually reliable to those in the know, but now they're becoming more and more reliable, which has made them increasingly unreliable. Some people get deeply offended when I question the reliability of TA indicators. They maintain (and rightly so, no doubt) that the indicators are scientific formulations with which one can predict the future. Any effort to disabuse technical analysts of this hilarious notion angers them. It's like taking a rattle away from a baby. Here are the scientific CI's for today and yesterday (today first and then yesterday): ST Naz CI: 18.350 33.990 MT Naz CI: 16.723 30.976 LT Naz CI: 74.257 77.401 ST S&P CI: 2.945 8.767 MT S&P CI: 2.945 8.767 LT S&P CI: 37.409 48.143