To: Gary who wrote (639 ) 8/17/1998 5:44:00 PM From: sea_urchin Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 81048
Gary: I beg to differ with you. Some of the "gold" sites, and I can mention a few but won't, were bullish for gold right through the bear market for the past two and a half years. If that's not misleading then I don't know what the word means. Apropos the Gold price in $AUS leading the gold price in $US, that's something I have not heard about. I don't deny that it could be. I just have not heard about it before. What it would imply is that the $AUS devalues before the gold price rises in $US. Frankly, I cannot see how the gold price in the US is lead by the weakness of the Australian economy but I guess one can always learn. "You can say these are all wrong too": P.E.I : I'm not sure what that is Auger : I have already said what I believe and I don't. In fact, I consider Elliott Waves to be a load of hogwash. Bollinger Bands : I think are very useful tools but you can create any set of Bollinger bands you choose by changing the spacing between the bands ie the number of standard deviations and/or the time span being analysed. So, once again, both the calculation chosen and the interpretation is subjective and not absolute. Relative Strength : How can that be wrong? It's a fact! How one interprets it is another matter. Moving Average : How can a moving average be wrong? It's simply a calculation. What can be wrong is the situation someone infers from it. Verenoso : I have no idea McAvity : ditto Sorry, I do not have a perfect site address. I'm amazed you believe one could even exist. Finally, I'm rather surprised that you now state that I am negative. I am, in fact, the one who has argued for the positive possibilities in both the gold price and the XAU. It is you and Mr Muench who are negative.