Search results

No matter how many times you tell or even prove to surf that price movements aren't random, he'll keep pulling that old stinkeroo of a coin-flip analogy out as if it actually has some relevancy to real trends. Sad.

+1000

There's a nose, a mouth and two eyes on a hag just like there is on a beautiful woman. By your logic, that means there's no difference between the two. As you've been told before, the runs test proves that price charts are nonrandom. Let us know if that ever sinks in.

As a rule, it doesn't. There are any number of longtime traders who can tell the difference between a random chart and a real stock chart. I'm not one of them but my experience is with data analysis algorithms, not charts.

Absolutely dead wrong, and as a result, so is all the rest of what you wrote.

Exactly. Some people think all of TA is contained in the books that have been published to date. So naive.

I started another thread called "TA does work because ..." at the same time but it's gone nowhere. Maybe you'd like to post something there.

To learn something that nobody else knows? :eek:

There are an infinite number of different ways to manipulate price and/or volume data to form technical indicators. The idea that any academic study looking at a necessarily tiny, tiny subset of the infinite number of indicators can reasonably conclude that "TA doesn't work" is laughably...

(The following applies to technical indicators in the public domain.) (1) The vast majority of technical indicators are too weak to provide an edge. If they weren't weak, they wouldn't be free. Think about it. (2) The majority of technical indicators are hodgepodge formulae with little...

No, dumbass, Obama is NOT calling for a tax increase; he is calling for a stop of the Bush tax cut for zillionaires while continuing the Bush tax cut for ordinary workers, EXACTLY AS THE POST POINTED OUT. Net effect: a middle-class tax cut compared to the Clinton years. Geez, you goobers on...

Congrats, AK. :) Given all the reichtard mega-whining here and elsewhere over a thoroughly toothless mandate (zero penalty for not paying the "tax" (UUUH, a TAX! :eek: ) for not having health insurance), you'd think we had been invaded by Iran or something. In fact, one asshole...

Exactly. Jem seems not to understand that he is arguing for Deism, not Christianity. LOL

Some of them are willing to accept the evidence for evolution and the Big Bang Theory so long as they still get to claim "God did it". It's like the last gasp of the gaps theists: as long as they can cling to fine-tuning as somehow unexplained by natural causes, therefore God! LOL

LOL! Let's recap: kut2k2: When people adhere to a belief for which there is not one iota of a shred of real evidence, it's pretty clear where the real problem lies .... Hint: it ain't with science, nor with the disbelievers. jem: Why do atheists always make this ridiculous claim. They...

LMAO at some shyster in Southern California presuming he knows physics. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_design#Argument_from_fine_tuning

+1

Wrong again. Science cannot ABSOLUTELY answer the question but it can deduce a probability, which is so close to zero as to be practically indistinguishable from zero. When people adhere to a belief for which there is not one iota of a shred of real evidence, it's pretty clear where the real...

Why not just read the Amazon reviews and avoid all the crap you get here from ET trolls when you ask questions like that? http://www.amazon.com/Technical-Analysis-Complete-Financial-Technicians/product-reviews/0131531131/ref=sr_1_1_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

Actually the science is settled. "Does God exist?" is not a scientific question to begin with, especially when theists play all sorts of childish games with what they mean by "God." First principle in scholarship: define your terms. Every time a theist has been pinned down to a specific...