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.

Technology Stocks : Apple Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Henry J Costanzo who wrote (128223)	3/18/2012 8:39:45 AM
From: Stock Puppy	Respond to of 213177

And why shouldn't the gap around 7, on May 5, 2003, also be filled ????.......LOL I've got some wood filler, if anyone needs...

To: Henry J Costanzo who wrote (128223)	3/18/2012 3:33:21 PM
From: Edward Boghosian	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 213177

LOL is not a logical answer to my question. I'm not an expert on technical analysis but I do peruse, occasionally, certain features of it. THEREFORE: If someone accepts that the most current gap will be filled as stated in one of the posts, then the earlier gap should also be filled. If one does not accept the fact that the earlier gap does/will not have to be filled but accepts the current gap should/will, then gaps do not necessarily have to be filled. Show me then where in the publications on technical analysis of securities it states this. I'm under the impression all gaps should be filled-sooner or later. If not, then, what decides which gap(s) is/are filled and which ones are not?