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: 16yearcycle who wrote (33735)	2/26/2002 4:53:26 PM
From: TREND1	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 99280

Is that a female computer program? If so, Hal would be very interested(g) Larry Dudash

To: 16yearcycle who wrote (33735)	2/26/2002 6:46:49 PM
From: exp	Respond to of 99280

Eugene, could you please comment on my post: Message 17113953 To:Eugene Kearney who wrote (33264) From: exp Tuesday, Feb 26, 2002 9:04 AM Respond to of 33772 Eugene, intriguing arguments about rsi on nas bp but perhaps not entirely correct. BPCOMP rsi had similarly low values in 1999 and in Oct 2000 at NON-bottoms. On the other hand, BPNDX has not had such low values at NON-bottoms but is more volatile than BPCOMP. As far as NASI rsi it was just as low in Oct 2000 at a NON-bottom. Your arguments 1. and 3. do not appear as important technically to me. I think that what happened is that after a 400 pt and 19% correction on Nasdaq some indicators naturally exhibit quite oversold levels similarly to Oct 2000. I still maintain that 1650 is a natural potential bottom judging from weekly Nasdaq charts and that sentiment indicators must mark this potential bottom in an unequivocal manner if we are to have a sustainable rally. Eugene, thanks for your interesting thoughts and please contribute more insights on this thread as we are all focused on the same goal of increasing our portfolios' values.