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 : MDA - Market Direction Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: HairBall who wrote (1627)	12/14/1998 12:15:00 AM
From: Craig Richards	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 99985

OT Hi LG, Congratulations on starting such a successful thread. I just wanted to point out that Vitas violated the TOS in his attack on you by posting more than 20 posts in 6 hours. Craig P. S. Sometimes the best way to keep attacks to a minimum is to ignore them and let the attacker get the last word in. Remember that ignoring a post does not mean you agree with it, but just means it isn't worth your time to reply to it. Looking forward to more productive on topic posts from all.

To: HairBall who wrote (1627)	12/14/1998 12:33:00 AM
From: Doug R	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 99985

So, uh...LG, Whaddya think about the market direction here? If it gets close to confirming a double top by breaking under 8,000, would it make more sense to you to treat it as the dips have been up to now? If so, would you wait for: A) A new alltime high to show that the possible double top was not "for real"? B) A bounce off the up trendline from 11/94 to 7/96? (or 7/96 to 9/98) C) A bounce off the line across the 8/7/97 to 12/5/97 highs? D) A holding of the 9/1/98 intraday low as a double bottom? E) Enter your guess here.... There will be trading opportunities all the time of course but if that isn't a double top on the Dow, one of those things will likely provide the best time to go comfortably long again. IMO, Doug R

To: HairBall who wrote (1627)	12/14/1998 12:56:00 AM
From: Jon K.	Respond to of 99985

Gee weez LG, you didn't have to apologize to me again in public; you already have sent me a pm and we made peace with each other. You are truly a man of integrity. I appreciate your effort to clear up all things. You have started a great thread, let's move on and make this even better. This thread is filled with good stuff, great food for everyone to enjoy. But as you know when you are preparing tasty food for your friends, you have to expect a few flies to hang around...well, that's life. (I will bring a flyswatter next time -gg-) I'm on your side ma-man!

To: HairBall who wrote (1627)	12/14/1998 1:18:00 AM
From: Vitas	Respond to of 99985

OT >>>1) Apologize to Jon K<<< You admit that I was right, but you are going to rat me out for what exactly? You implied that I was full of hot air and called me a stalker? Tsk, tsk. ------------------------------------------------------- END OF STORY ____________________________

To: HairBall who wrote (1627)	12/14/1998 4:15:00 AM
From: accountclosed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 99985

LG I have tried to let this issue die. I have said I probably didn't approach you in the best way. I have also apologized to you directly through Private Messages and wished you Good Luck and the continued success of this thread. I also got several Private Messages from people that were supportive of what I had done and how I had comported myself. I reiterate my apologies that I did not word my questions better. I reiterate that I wish you the best. I will say that it is false when you say I have not posted to this thread before. I have posted several times to both the predecessor thread and to this one. After looking just a minute or two I found one from this thread. Message 6712317 I don't really see the relevance anyway. It was your contention that I only showed up to attack you. Here is my original post to you: techstocks.com I was surprised when I saw Ney in your profile. I don't think my wording was the best when I said "I have debated others on si about Ney. The Ney devotees seemed to be fairly paranoid looking for someone to blame. You on the other hand, do not seem to be totally in left field as these other folks." I am not a big fan of TA, so I had trouble saying something like "You on the other hand have a great head on your shoulders". But it was my intent to say that I didn't understand why a reasonable thinking person would use Ney and you seemed more in the reasonable range. I got your reply: techstocks.com You say in the post to which I am responding "I then told him what I tell everyone who wants to debate me over market manipulation, I have already debated that subject all I am ever going to for the rest of my life" If you told me that, I am not in receipt of that post and it is not contained in your original reply. You go on to say "Antoine lurking the MDA thread decided to join Vitas Saturday morning in his attack on me." I said in my posts that I don't know Vitas and don't follow his posts. I have previously documented that you have referred to this forum as "your" thread. I am also aware that you started the thread and write to it more than any other poster. What I have experienced has been a door slammed in my face. I was conscious that you were the lead poster on this thread. When I came forward with my ideas, you responded that you didn't care what I thought. It is my contention that people that are the de facto leaders of threads have special responsibilities to set the tone for debate and create an environment. For me that environment was a "Get Lost" sign. I particularly feel that threatening another poster repeatedly with contacting administration, publishing on the SI Legal thread that "Eventually there will be individuals that will be willing to commit the appropriate funds to go after such attackers and exact a measure of justice" Message 6813662 and then in fact contacting SI administration, shows just how hospitable my reception has been here. Perhaps I am not entitled to a debate, but it seems you debate nearly everyone who posts here. I reiterate that I try to be a productive member of SI. I acknowledge that the vast majority of your efforts are productive and further acknowledge that you have may appreciative fellow posters. But again I offer that people that are among the leaders of threads ought to follow the principle of "noblesse oblige" and go out of their way to welcome people that try to come forward to exchange ideas. Again, I offer my apologies and wish you the best of luck. I would ask that you be less eager to pull out the trump card of threatening fellow SI posters with their membership rights. The real challenge for us all is the market, not each other.

To: HairBall who wrote (1627)	12/14/1998 8:42:00 AM
From: Haim R. Branisteanu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 99985

LG - THANK YOU. Haim

To: HairBall who wrote (1627)	12/14/1998 11:30:00 AM
From: James Strauss	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 99985

Welcome Back... Glad to see you back LG... Sometimes hosting a thread can be an adventure... Your input is always welcomed by me whether we agree or disagree... The important thing is the presentation of ideas and opinions... To that end, the MDA thread is one of the more valuable threads on SI... And... It wouldn't be here unless you started it... Jim

To: HairBall who wrote (1627)	12/14/1998 12:56:00 PM
From: John Pitera	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 99985

LG,I signed up for SI largely due to This Thread which you and Donald Sew started, I followed over from the tech options thread back on the Dec 2nd. I feel you have done an overall excellent job as a host/participant and think the lateness of the hour on Friday night had a lot to do with the way that whole spat evolved. Keep up the good work, I'm also highly impressed with the group that you have coming here particularly Debra o, BobbyB, Patrick s DM Patterson, Haim B, L3, etc FWIW, John