To: Chip McVickar who wrote (28857 ) 2/2/2012 12:24:03 AM From: Joseph Silent 1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 222962 Chip ..... let me also add ..... since I am speaking in a general way ..... the whole idea of simple lines ( vs. waves, cycles etc ---- none of which I am knocking, because I'm comfy with working in "transform spaces" too) has been an interesting play. TA looks at lines as trendlines, support, resistance etc. Nothing wrong. But suppose you look at the market as a beast that has some long term goal in mind, and wants to get there without you knowing the plan or the goal, then the picture changes. The lines take the shape of rates of growth and decline, which periodically change, even though the goal is not changed, or only temporarily changed. However, because of the symmetries I am seeing, there is no "random" going on, or if there is random, it is only a small part of the play. It is as if you --- the market --- change the rates at predetermined times that you know or can alter, but I am not able to predict. But after it happens, I see the symmetry and say I should have somewhat expected that. So something is going on, and I can't put my finger on it. All the support/resistance talk is okay, but it does not carry much meaning for me, or is simply different terminology for something that will happen anyway. The first temptation then is to say "use statistics along with whatever symmetry you see" to predict. Perhaps that may be a heuristic path, but because these processes are non-stationary (meaning probabilities change with time) collecting and using stats is weak at best. This just looks more and more like a social game with untold parameters. And TA is baby language with a not-well-defined grammar (in the technical sense). Perhaps (or even likely) there is no other way. If everyone is an adult, there is no game.