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 : TC2000 Users Technical Analysis Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: deep_rough who wrote (1148)	11/5/1998 4:52:00 PM
From: Sean W. Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3291

*I did, I can, and I already can. It appears to me that TC2000 can't do some of the things QP1 could. I was asking for confirmation, in case I was missing something* yes obviously because that can certainly be done and if you spend some time with the personal criteria formulas you should be able to code them. Juding from the simple nature of the question it seemed that you had not touched that section yet or the question would have been more specific. My original "rant" is unchanged. I cannot, on my own, get QP2 scans to work. Thanks to your assistance, I was able to get a few of my "bread and butter" scans up, and I am in business. But some day soon I'm going to want to try another trading idea, and I guess I'll have to come to you for help again, yes? As much as I appreciate your help, I'd prefer a program that I can master unassisted. Well throw tc2000 out because you couldn't code a simple formula without help. So Qp2 and Tc2000 fail this test. Your opinion notwithstanding, my experience is different. I never needed assistance writing QP1 scans, I never needed assistance writing Metastock formulas, but, as I said, I couldn't get QP2 scans to work without help. I should note that the QP1 manual had 19 pages devoted to writing scans; the QP2 manual has 2. I'm sure that had something to do with it. Docs definely suck! agree fully there.... *Do you have an ulterior motive?* nope. *Why must your way be the ONLY way?* My way is a logical scientific way. I see other examples of this all the time and use them. Mine is certainly not the only good solution but until I better solution is presented I stick with my methods. What I see in your case is an illogical PO'd user?? I see no logic to your quarrels. Just contradiction and lack of understanding. *Why are you so eager to help me with my QP2 problems, and unwilling to help me in evaluating TC2000? I just don't understand* Because you have contradicated yourself at least twice which then makes me wonder why I'm wasting my time with someone who's not being completely honest with me or themselves about what they really want. I like to help people who's intentions are good and looking to help themselves. So what are you going to try now that TC2000 has failed one of your own criteria that makes QP2 unacceptable? Sean