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 : Zeev's Turnips - No Politics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (20275)	1/9/2002 4:30:24 PM
From: J.B.C.	Respond to of 99280

Thanks Zeev for your update, much appreciated. Jim

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (20275)	1/9/2002 4:34:16 PM
From: Steve Lee	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 99280

Never heard you talking about waves before: "the next two or three waves up" Do you subscribe to Elliot Wave theory, or are you just using the term more generally? I haven't given Elliot Wave much credence because of the inaccuracy of every call I have ever seen that quotes Elliot Wave theory as its basis. Are you the one to make me look at it more closely?

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (20275)	1/9/2002 5:19:32 PM
From: Justa Werkenstiff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 99280

Zeev: Re: "I thrust, this is a little clearer, but you must admit that your sum up (#reply-16884922) was an extreme (and distorted) simplification from my original scenario (#reply-16842549)." Yes, I got the "thrust" of your message. LOL. I did not intend to "distort" your post. I meant to summarize it instead. Sorry if it sounded that way. Your post to Ork referred back to your "original" scenario post with 2010 being most probable bottom and so I picked up where that lead. I summarized it in my own mind using the most probables as reference points (2010 and 2250) in that post. Perhaps it would have been more accurate to say between 1960 and 2388 to include all of the extremes in the "original." I see by reading subsequent posts to the "original" scenario that you have since altered that to a low somewhere in the 1900s. So perhaps it would have been even more accurate then to say that between 1900 and 2388 was the new range before today. Anyway, as always, I appreciate your clarification and excellent market analysis, especially in the post I am responding to now.