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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: HH who wrote (16216)	3/23/1998 9:37:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

Heyward, No No No!!!! I think Paul's vocal objection to TA is an academic cop-out.(Excuse me Paul but you have been vocal) Paul's objection has been the statistical non-correlation. Definitely a strong argument but it is similar to the statistical non-correlation of tobacco and cancer. First, my objection (although quite vocal) is not an academic cop-out. It is based on the fact that there is not a single unbiased study showing that TA works. And your reference to the "non-correlation" between tobacco and cancer is ludicrous because that 180 degrees off target. The correlation was first demonstrated by epidemiologists who are medical statisticians and later confirmed by direct experiment. The studies 'demonstrating' the non-correlation were bought and paid for by the tobacco companies and are similar to the statistic put forward by the pump and dump sheets. I am vocal on this because it seems insane to me to use a system for which there is no evidence. So I asked, and continue to ask, is there any real evidence (not anecdotal) that this stuff works. I believe that the real money to be made in TA is by writing books and touting the system. I also believe that the believers out there are being had, and that saddens me. The analogy that immediately springs to mind is one of sick people going to quacks. So let's look at it this way. Of all the TA'ers out there in oil and gas land Ron was the only one that was consistently bullish over the past few weeks. Others gave a half-hearted maybe yes maybe no reads on the market. On the other hand, all of the people who follow fundamentals were extremely positive about this group, the only negative being voiced by Baird and many others that that the land drillers were much more vulnerable than the others. Regards, Paul

To: HH who wrote (16216)	3/23/1998 11:22:00 PM
From: Brian P.	Respond to of 95453

OFF TOPIC << Paul's objection has been the statistical non-correlation. Definitely a strong argument but it is similar to the statistical non-correlation of tobacco and cancer. >> You gotta be kidding. There is not a stronger, more solid, more replicated statistical correlation in all of the medical literature. To say that smoking and cancer are not highly correlated is, well, not a serious statement, to be polite about it. Unless one is paid to see no evil by a tobacco company, or smoking the wrong kind of cigarette, the case for smoking being correlated with cancer is absolutely undeniable. There are NO serious data that contest this. And although epidemiological correlations can never establish causation, if anyone at this point seriously thinks smoking does not cause lung cancer, they probably also believe in the tooth fairy.