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: James F. Hopkins who wrote (20594)	10/3/2001 1:26:45 PM
From: donald sew	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 52237

Jim, >>>> This thing that you always have to test the last low is for the birds, there is a point when the market gets so low that no test will hold and you will just keep on going down, ( until we maybe bounce off zero a time or two ) <<<< I have probably written several thousands posts. How often have I used the term "HAVE TO"?. And specificly concerning the issue of RETEST, Im quite sure that I did not use the words "HAVE TO". You may feel that Im making too much of that issue, but to me that is an important issue, since I purposely put alot of effort in avoiding such terms. Now, I do use terms such as HIGH PROBABILITY, but HIGH PROBABILITY does not mean 100%. Also I often do mention that nothing is 100%. So if you are interpreting HIGH PROBABILITY as meaning 100%, thats your error. In your comment you left out a specific parameter. And I know that I have mentioned it often that of "greater than 7% decline" in terms of having a retest. "you may not remember but back in June or July I said we would not test the April Lows" I don't recall at all you making that comment unless you specificly addressed that post to me directly. And if you did address that post to me directly, I have no memory of it. I have mentioned it previously that I really don't follow read many posts, and basicly I mainly only read posts which are specificly addressed directly to me. Seldom do I read more. If you felt for a second that I was addressing you for saying that you were wrong about a retest - if you reread my demonstrative posts about those who were wrong about not having a retest, I thought I made it very clear that I was specificly attacking those analysts who felt that way, especially those who were obnoxious about it. In no way was that directed at you unless you are an obnoxious analyst. I did make that very clear. If you got offended, then I can only apologise for not making it clearer - I sincerely thought I made it very clear.