SA trolls never let facts get in the way of their bearish anti-Americanism.
On Nov 13 08:28 AM David Van Knapp wrote:
> I thought technical analysis was supposed to be a way to analyze > markets unemotionally...to discern what is happening, what is reality...without > going "on tilt" about it. > > Lots of comments on SA during this 8-month rally suggest that lots > of people are on tilt. There is a cluster of them right here: "The > result will not be pretty." "Averge Americans have no clue about > anything." "The notion took hold that you can buy any stock at any > absurd price." "People are just whistling past the graveyard and > have no idea as to what's about to hit them." And of course the conspiracy > theories, the government is lying, CNBC is lying, etc. > > The author isn't lying, he has presented facts. He constructed a > dry, emotionless, technical article, offering decent historical comparisons, > and he gets ripped for not understanding what's really going on. > He did make the "mistake" of offering a mild opinion on fundamentals, > and he got ripped for that. Nobody actually disputed his arguments > on a technical level; they just ignored them. Too bad, he did a good > job. Doesn't mean he's right, but he did a good job.
Are Stocks Making a Major Top? [View article]
On Nov 13 08:28 AM David Van Knapp wrote:
> I thought technical analysis was supposed to be a way to analyze
> markets unemotionally...to discern what is happening, what is reality...without
> going "on tilt" about it.
>
> Lots of comments on SA during this 8-month rally suggest that lots
> of people are on tilt. There is a cluster of them right here: "The
> result will not be pretty." "Averge Americans have no clue about
> anything." "The notion took hold that you can buy any stock at any
> absurd price." "People are just whistling past the graveyard and
> have no idea as to what's about to hit them." And of course the conspiracy
> theories, the government is lying, CNBC is lying, etc.
>
> The author isn't lying, he has presented facts. He constructed a
> dry, emotionless, technical article, offering decent historical comparisons,
> and he gets ripped for not understanding what's really going on.
> He did make the "mistake" of offering a mild opinion on fundamentals,
> and he got ripped for that. Nobody actually disputed his arguments
> on a technical level; they just ignored them. Too bad, he did a good
> job. Doesn't mean he's right, but he did a good job.