Trading from Charts

jimioddy

Member
Messages
68
Likes
3
This post is about what I consider to be ‘trading facts’. I expect many or most will disagree with me, but I don’t have a problem with that. Please challenge my assertions and tell me why I am wrong, or even why you agree.
A little background about how I formed these opinions. By now you could call me an experienced and knowledgeable trader since I’ve been trading fulltime for 2 years, spent thousands of hours watching and analysing price charts, have read widely, and tried dozens of indicators and expert advisors. My main conclusion is that whilst the market (FTSE & Forex) are NOT random, they MIGHT AS WELL BE RANDOM as perfectly explained by Benoit B. Mandelbrot in his book ‘The (Mis)Behaviour of Markets’. I also reject Fibonacci as being so much wishful thinking and self deception and for good reason. I developed a system of diagonal lines which produce more uncanny results than Fibonacci retracement. I so wanted my creation to work, but like Fibonacci it has no predictive power only retrospective annotation.
So here are my facts. Challenge them if you can.
1 ) The price goes up, the price goes down, and on different timescales – you can’t deny that.
2) Price movements do not go directly up or down, but are punctuated with pullbacks that look like ripples.
3) Chart patterns, like wedges, support and resistance lines etc, can be found in randomly generated data and are therefore most likely just fanciful creations of the mind. I know of no study that has proved that the price is more likely to go up or down following any chart pattern – until proof is provided they are of no value to me.
4) Price movements might as well be random.
5) Most trading is done automatically by computers in large institutions, for how else could the FTSE, DOW, S&P follow each other so very closely on short timescales? It can’t be down to crowd behaviour – it’s too quick.
6) Thousands of individuals, like me, sit at screens all day hoping to become consistently successful.
7) Mass psychology (crowd behaviour) might have some effect, but talking about bulls or bears being in control is only a rational fiction which may help certain traders to think about price action.
8) It is more likely that a trend will continue than reverse.
9) Bollinger Bands are another pseudo-statistical-scientific self-deception, although an expert advisor based on bands will produce a profit if one can tolerate a horrendous drawdown for little profit.
10) I believe the oft quoted (and probably made up statistic) that 95% of people who begin trading fail.
There is one genuine, indisputable price pattern, which is the ‘Pullback’. Likewise, the ‘Head & Shoulders’ pattern is one which is traced by the price rather than imposed by the mind and which I find to be a good predictor of major price movements (continuation or reverse). Given these two pieces of information I wonder if an even bigger and similar extension would be an Elliot Wave? Although I would need some convincing.
 
I think you might need to look up what "fact" means. All I really got was

"I failed doing this this and this, but have had more success trading head and shoulders so that is obviously the exception."
 
Wow I bet it took you a long time to come with that comment Mr Veteran Member. I won't bother with tW2 again if that's the best comment that anyone can make.
 
When, in the last paragraph, I said the "pattern is one which is traced by the price rather than imposed by the mind", the first verb is important, not the noun. I considered using the word 'shape' instead of 'pattern' in this sentence in an attempt to avoid the accusation you make. Think about it, if you can't see the difference in meaning, then ask a sensible question. I invited you to "challenge my assertions", but added please "tell me WHY I am wrong". I had hoped for some added value.
 
For what reason are the "pullback" and "head and shoulders" "shapes" the only ones that work when the Market "might as well be random"?

A genuine question, I'm not having a dig.
 
Not all perceive patterns and markets in the same way. Our views are individual subjective opinions. therefore a global statement is not accurate.
 
This post is about what I consider to be ‘trading facts’. I expect many or most will disagree with me, but I don’t have a problem with that. Please challenge my assertions and tell me why I am wrong, or even why you agree.
A little background about how I formed these opinions. By now you could call me an experienced and knowledgeable trader since I’ve been trading fulltime for 2 years, spent thousands of hours watching and analysing price charts, have read widely, and tried dozens of indicators and expert advisors. My main conclusion is that whilst the market (FTSE & Forex) are NOT random, they MIGHT AS WELL BE RANDOM as perfectly explained by Benoit B. Mandelbrot in his book ‘The (Mis)Behaviour of Markets’. I also reject Fibonacci as being so much wishful thinking and self deception and for good reason. I developed a system of diagonal lines which produce more uncanny results than Fibonacci retracement. I so wanted my creation to work, but like Fibonacci it has no predictive power only retrospective annotation.
So here are my facts. Challenge them if you can.
1 ) The price goes up, the price goes down, and on different timescales – you can’t deny that.
2) Price movements do not go directly up or down, but are punctuated with pullbacks that look like ripples.
3) Chart patterns, like wedges, support and resistance lines etc, can be found in randomly generated data and are therefore most likely just fanciful creations of the mind. I know of no study that has proved that the price is more likely to go up or down following any chart pattern – until proof is provided they are of no value to me.
4) Price movements might as well be random.
5) Most trading is done automatically by computers in large institutions, for how else could the FTSE, DOW, S&P follow each other so very closely on short timescales? It can’t be down to crowd behaviour – it’s too quick.
6) Thousands of individuals, like me, sit at screens all day hoping to become consistently successful.
7) Mass psychology (crowd behaviour) might have some effect, but talking about bulls or bears being in control is only a rational fiction which may help certain traders to think about price action.
8) It is more likely that a trend will continue than reverse.
9) Bollinger Bands are another pseudo-statistical-scientific self-deception, although an expert advisor based on bands will produce a profit if one can tolerate a horrendous drawdown for little profit.
10) I believe the oft quoted (and probably made up statistic) that 95% of people who begin trading fail.
There is one genuine, indisputable price pattern, which is the ‘Pullback’. Likewise, the ‘Head & Shoulders’ pattern is one which is traced by the price rather than imposed by the mind and which I find to be a good predictor of major price movements (continuation or reverse). Given these two pieces of information I wonder if an even bigger and similar extension would be an Elliot Wave? Although I would need some convincing.

This is just my view not subjective to an arguement,Points 1-10 there is no challenge they are most likely the thoughts and scenarios that most people will go through when starting out trading and over time will have searched and tried many different ways and approaches even after several years, wether its a combination of demo +live ,or just straight live or whatever.More than likley the answer lays within those points 1-10, the real challenge is what you can find that works for you and build upon it.
 
Jimi, i'm not sure you'll find many people with the required motivation to disagree with your points and explain their whole belief system about the markets, as it's just a waste of energy and time for anyone who makes money. I refute many of your 'facts', as accepting them would lead me to being a net loser. However, from reading what you've said, it seems like your beliefs and premises about trading are completely misaligned, which will make disciplined, profitable trading practically impossible. You say you're a full-time trader of 2 years...are you profitable? Do you make a living from trading?

I'd also add that thousand of hours of watching screens and testing countless indicators & EA's doesn't add up to squat if you start with an incorrect premise.
 
By now you could call me an experienced and knowledgeable trader since I’ve been trading fulltime for 2 years, spent thousands of hours watching and analysing price charts, have read widely, and tried dozens of indicators and expert advisors.

"Thousands of hours watching charts" in two years. There are maybe 12k waking hours in two years, so you've spent, what, 25% of your waking time looking at charts? Did you never get bored or think that maybe you were barking up the wrong tree?

I don't trade technical patterns but of all of them, head and shoulders for me has always seemed the best one.

What's your conclusion anyway.. you're going to persevere or give up?
 
1 ) The price goes up, the price goes down, and on different timescales.
Cycles within cycles.
2) Price movements do not go directly up or down, but are punctuated with pullbacks that look like ripples.
Very often five waves up.
3) Chart patterns
In organized markets chart patterns show supply and demand breakouts. Flags definitely fly at half-mast.
5) how else could the FTSE, DOW, S&P follow each other so very closely on short timescales?
How did they do it before computers. Same buyers and sellers in all markets.
6) Thousands of individuals, like me, sit at screens all day hoping to become consistently successful.
Thousands more trade but do not sit in front of there screens all day and are successful.
7) .. talking about bulls or bears being in control.
It sounds like you are listing to the news. This can be a real problem.
8) It is more likely that a trend will continue than reverse.
Until I get in.
9) Bollinger Bands
Bent trend lines.
95% of people who begin trading fail.
To low. But when they come back, they trade a few seasonal spreads a year and earn back there losses.
There is one genuine, indisputable price pattern, which is the ‘Pullback.’
Pullback is a test of support. Big money wants to see support before it goes whole hog.
Likewise, the ‘Head & Shoulders’ pattern
Reveals accumulation and distrubution of securities.
Elliot Wave?
Elliot waves (five waves up off of the second low of a double bottom) can be clearly seen on seasonal charts. No guessing needed.
 
support and resistance lines etc, can be found in randomly generated data and are therefore most likely just fanciful creations of the mind.

What? S&R lines are where lots of people place entry orders, TPs & SLs, therefore they are significant levels to trade off. Grab the H1 GBPUSD chart for the past 2 weeks and now tell me you think that a support line is just a "fanciful creation of the mind"...
The reason that Fibs and the like work is due to people using them; again people setting pending orders and stop losses etc at these levels. So, they do work.
 
For what reason are the "pullback" and "head and shoulders" "shapes" the only ones that work when the Market "might as well be random"?

A genuine question, I'm not having a dig.

Brewski1984

I appreciate your question. Answering it forces me to articulate my view more clearly, which could help me improve my understanding. I would like to answer clearly and comprehensively so will get back to you within a day or two.
 
Brewski1984

I appreciate your question. Answering it forces me to articulate my view more clearly, which could help me improve my understanding. I would like to answer clearly and comprehensively so will get back to you within a day or two.

I just think the market goes through periods where TA works and doesnt work so well, and as long as you survive the times it doesn't, you can be profitable over time. I think everyone can trade and make money if they have the patience and never risk too much. Trading becomes more and more discretionary as you get better, and market adapts all the time, so you have to adapt with it.
 
Wow I bet it took you a long time to come with that comment Mr Veteran Member. I won't bother with tW2 again if that's the best comment that anyone can make.

If you'd actually of posted something worth thought then maybe I would have spent longer, unfortunately, you made a very ignorant post, claiming that your beliefs are facts, this is rather foolish and arrogant, and so I deem it below myself to spend much time explaining things.

Telling you to look up the word fact however, didn't take long, and might actually help the world by removing some of your BS from it.

As to not bothering with "tW2" again, one can only hope.
 
1) Agreed. Market prices are fractals.
2) Agreed, as per 1.
3) They will be found in randomly generated data but that does not prove market data is also random. For probabilities of certain patterns leading to defined outcomes see Encyclopedia of Chart Patterns, Thomas N Bulkowski, and other studies.
4) Price movements are not 100% predictable, but that does not mean they are 100% random. Analysis of price behaviour will therefore result in a better than random return on investment.
5) Possibly, you could be right. But whether prices are driven by human or machine, they are susceptible to technical analysis.
6) True. probably most fail.
7) True, but the graphic realisaiton of the market is only an aid to picture how it is behaving and how it may behave next.
8) Agreed, and this suggests markets are not random.
9) Agreed: BBs are a derivative of MAs, so many of the same characteristics would apply.
10) Yes, but it also depends onm what is meant by 'fail'. Probably 95% of the traders now trading will never grow their accounts to the point at which they become a comfortable main income: but if that wasn't their objective, they didn't fail to make it.

Pullbacks and H&S are useful patterns that work more often than they fail, but there are many others. As for Elliot Waves, seems to me to be a cousin of Fibonacci maths, and if one is alchemy, they both are.
 
If you'd actually of posted something worth thought then maybe I would have spent longer, unfortunately, you made a very ignorant post, claiming that your beliefs are facts, this is rather foolish and arrogant, and so I deem it below myself to spend much time explaining things.

Telling you to look up the word fact however, didn't take long, and might actually help the world by removing some of your BS from it.

As to not bothering with "tW2" again, one can only hope.




I said "what I consider to be ‘trading facts’"
and
"Please challenge my assertions"

admitting that I may be wrong, that this was the way I saw things.

In fact, asking for considered opinions i.e. WHY you agree or not.

If I'd used the words 'assumptions' instead of 'facts' perhaps you would you have spent the same energy being contructive.

I did not mean to be arrogant and have received some very good responses, so no you didn't put me off.
 
I don't know what this has to do with anything Hotch? But if it will make you happy..
I think you might need to look up what "fact" means. "
Fact

The word fact can refer to verified information about past or present circumstances or events which are presented as objective reality. In science, it means a provable concept.[1]

Contents
1 Etymology and usage
2 Fact in philosophy
2.1 Correspondence and the slingshot argument
2.2 Compound facts
2.3 The fact-value distinction
2.4 The factual-counterfactual distinction
3 Fact in science
3.1 Scholarly inquiry regarding scientific fact
3.2 Fact and the scientific method
4 Fact in history
5 Fact in law
5.1 Legal pleadings
8 References

Etymology and usage

The word fact derives from the Latin Factum, and was first used in English with the same meaning: "a thing done or performed", a use that is now obsolete.[2] The common usage of, "something that has really occurred or is the case", dates from the middle of the sixteenth century.[3]

Fact is sometimes used synonymously with truth or reality, as distinguishable from conclusions or opinions. This use is found in such phrases Matter of fact,[4] and "... not history, nor fact, but imagination."

Fact also indicates a matter under discussion deemed to be true or correct, such as to emphasize a point or prove a disputed issue; (e.g., "... the fact of the matter is ...").[5][6]

Alternatively, fact may also indicate an allegation or stipulation of something that may or may not be a "true fact",[7] (e.g., "the author's facts are not trustworthy"). This alternate usage, although contested by some, has a long history in standard English.[8]

Fact may also indicate findings derived through a process of evaluation, including review of testimony, direct observation, or otherwise; as distinguishable from matters of inference or speculation.[9] This use is reflected in the terms "fact-find" and "fact-finder" (e.g., "set up a fact-finding commission").[10]

Facts may be checked by reason, experiment, personal experience, or may be argued from authority. Roger Bacon wrote "If in other sciences we should arrive at certainty without doubt and truth without error, it behooves us to place the foundations of knowledge in mathematics."[11]

Fact in philosophy

In philosophy, the concept fact is considered in epistemology and ontology. Questions of objectivity and truth are closely associated with questions of fact. A "fact" can be defined as something which is the case, that is, the state of affairs[12] reported by a true proposition.[13][14]

Facts may be understood as that which makes a true sentence true. Facts may also be understood as those things to which a true sentence refers. The statement "Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system" is about the fact Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system.[15]

Misunderstanding of the difference between fact and theory sometimes leads to fallacy in rhetoric,[citation needed] in which one person will say his or her claim is factual whereas the opponent's claim is just theory. Such statements indicate confusion as to the meanings of both words, suggesting the speaker believes that fact means "truth," and theory means "speculation."
Correspondence and the slingshot argument
Some versions of the correspondence theory of truth hold that what makes a sentence true is that it corresponds to a fact.[16] This theory presupposes the existence of an objective world.

The Slingshot argument claims to show that all true statements stand for the same thing - the truth value true. If this argument holds, and facts are taken to be what true statements stand for, then we reach the counter-intuitive conclusion that there is only one fact - "the truth".[17]

Compound facts
Any non-trivial true statement about reality is necessarily an abstraction composed of a complex of objects and properties or relations.[18] For example, the fact described by the true statement "Paris is the capital city of France" implies that there is such a place as Paris, there is such a place as France, there are such things as capital cities, as well as that France has a government, that the government of France has the power to define its capital city, and that the French government has chosen Paris to be the capital, that there is such a thing as a "place" or a "government", etc.. The verifiable accuracy of all of these assertions, if facts themselves, may coincide to create the fact that Paris is the capital of France.

Difficulties arise, however, in attempting to identify the constituent parts of negative, modal, disjunctive, or moral facts.[19]

The fact-value distinction
Main article: fact-value distinction
Moral philosophers since David Hume have debated whether values are objective, and thus factual. In A Treatise of Human Nature Hume pointed out there is no obvious way for a series of statements about what ought to be the case to be derived from a series of statements of what is the case. Those who insist there is a logical gulf between facts and values, such that it is fallacious to attempt to derive values from facts, include G. E. Moore, who called attempting to do so the Naturalistic fallacy.

The factual-counterfactual distinction
Main article: counterfactual conditional
Factuality — what has occurred — can also be contrasted with counterfactuality — what might have occurred, but did not. A counterfactual conditional or subjunctive conditional is a conditional (or "if-then") statement indicating what would be the case if events had been other than they actually are. For example, "If Alexander had lived, his empire would have been greater than Rome". This is to be contrasted with an indicative conditional, which indicates what is (in fact) the case if its antecedent is (in fact) true — for example, "if you drink this, it will make you well".

Such sentences are important to Modal logic, especially since the development of Possible world semantics.

Fact in science

Further information: scientific method and philosophy of science
Just as in philosophy, the scientific concept of fact is central to fundamental questions regarding the nature, methods, scope and validity of scientific reasoning.

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.[20] (For an example, see Evolution as theory and fact.)

Various scholars have offered significant refinements to this basic formulation, some of which are detailed below. Also, rigorous scientific use of the term "fact" is careful to distinguish: 1) states of affairs in the external world; from 2) assertions of fact that may be considered relevant in scientific analysis. The term is used in both senses in the philosophy of science.[21]

Scholarly inquiry regarding scientific fact
Scholars and clinical researchers in both the social and natural sciences have forwarded numerous questions and theories in clarifying the fundamental nature of scientific fact.[22] Some pertinent issues raised by this inquiry include: the process by which "established fact" becomes recognized and accepted as such;[23]
whether and to what extent "fact" and "theoretic explanation" can be considered truly independent and separable from one another;[24][25]
to what extent are "facts" influenced by the mere act of observation;[25] and
to what extent are factual conclusions influenced by history and consensus, rather than a strictly systematic methodology.[26]
Consistent with the theory of confirmation holism, some scholars assert "fact" to be necessarily "theory-laden" to some degree. Thomas Kuhn and others pointed out that knowing what facts to measure, and how to measure them, requires the use of some other theory (e.g., age of fossils is based on radiocarbon dating which is justified by reasoning that radioactive decay follows a Poisson process rather than a Bernoulli process). Similarly, Percy Williams Bridgman is credited with the methodological position known as operationalism, which asserts that all observations are not only influenced, but necessarily defined by the means and assumptions used to measure them.

Fact and the scientific method
Apart from the fundamental inquiry in to the nature of scientific fact, there remain the practical and social considerations of how fact is investigated, established, and substantiated through the proper application of the scientific method.[27] Scientific facts are generally believed to be independent of the observer: no matter who performs a scientific experiment, all observers will agree on the outcome.[28] In addition to these considerations, there are the social and institutional measures, such as peer review and accreditation, that are intended to promote factual accuracy (among other interests) in scientific study.[29]

Fact in history

Further information: Historiography
A common rhetorical cliché states, "History is written by the winners". This phrase suggests but does not examine the use of facts in the writing of history.

E. H. Carr in his 1961 volume, What is History?, argues that the inherent biases from the gathering of facts makes the objective truth of any historical perspective idealistic and impossible. Facts are, "like fish in the Ocean," of which we may only happen to catch a few, only an indication of what is below the surface. Even a dragnet cannot tell us for certain what it would be like to live below the Ocean's surface. Even if we do not discard any facts (or fish) presented, we will always miss the majority; the site of our fishing, the methods undertaken, the weather and even luck play a vital role in what we will catch. Additionally, the composition of history is inevitably made up by the compilation of many different bias of fact finding - all compounded over time. He concludes that for a historian to attempt a more objective method, one must accept that history can only aspire to a conversation of the present with the past - and that one's methods of fact gathering should be openly examined. As with science, historical truth and facts will therefore change over time and reflect only the present consensus (if that).

Fact in law

Further information: Evidence (law) and Trier of fact
In most common law jurisdictions,[30] the general concept and analysis of fact reflects fundamental principles of Jurisprudence, and is supported by several well-established standards.[31][32] Matters of fact have various formal definitions under common law jurisdictions.

These include:

an element required in legal pleadings to demonstrate a cause of action;[33][34]
the determinations of the finder of fact after evaluating admissible evidence produced in a trial or hearing;[35]
a potential ground of reversible error forwarded on appeal in an appellate court;[36] and
any of various matters subject to investigation by official authority to establish whether a crime has been perpetrated, and to establish culpability.[37]
Legal pleadings

A party to a civil suit generally must clearly state all relevant allegations of fact upon which a claim is based. The requisite level of precision and particularity of these allegations varies depending on the rules of civil procedure as well as the jurisdiction. Parties who face uncertainties regarding the facts and circumstances attendant to their side in a dispute may sometimes invoke alternative pleading.[38] In this situation, a party may plead separate sets of facts that (when considered together) may be contradictory or mutually exclusive. This (seemingly) logically-inconsistent presentation of facts may be necessary as a safeguard against contingencies (such as res judicata) that would otherwise preclude presenting a claim or defense that depends on a particular interpretation of the underlying facts.[39]

References

^ Definition from WordNetweb.Princeton
^ "Fact". OED_2d_Ed_1989, (but note the conventional uses: after the fact and before the fact).
^ "Fact" (1a). OED_2d_Ed_1989 Joye Exp. Dan. xi. Z vij b, Let emprours and kinges know this godly kynges fact. 1545
^ "Fact" (4a) OED_2d_Ed_1989
^ "Fact" (6c). OED_2d_Ed_1989
^ (See also "Matter" (2,6). Compact_OED)
^ "Fact" (5). OED_2d_Ed_1989
^ According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, "Fact has a long history of usage in the sense 'allegation'" AHD_4th_Ed. The OED dates this use to 1729.
^ "Fact" (6a). OED_2d_Ed_1989
^ "Fact" (8). OED_2d_Ed_1989
^ Roger Bacon, translated by Robert Burke Opus Majus, Book I, Chapter 2.
^ See Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Proposition 2: What is the case -- a fact -- is the existence of states of affairs.
^ "A fact is, traditionally, the worldly correlate of a true proposition, a state of affairs whose obtaining makes that proposition true". -- Fact in The Oxford Companion to Philosophy
^ "A fact, it might be said, is a state of affairs that is the case or obtains" -- Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. States of Affairs
^ Alex Oliver, Fact, in Craig, Edward (2005). Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Routledge, Oxford. ISBN 0415324955.
^ Engel, Pascal (2002). Truth. McGill-Queen's Press- MQUP. ISBN 0773524622.
^ The argument is presented in many places, but see for example Davidson, Truth and Meaning, in Davidson, Donald (1984). Truth and Interpretation. Clarendon Press, Oxford. ISBN 0-19-824617-X.
^ "Facts possess internal structure, being complexes of objects and properties or relations" Oxford Companion to Philosophy
^ "Fact", in The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Ted Honderich, editor. (Oxford, 1995) ISBN 0-19-866132-0
^ Gower, Barry (1997). Scientific Method: A Historical and Philosophical Introduction. Routledge. ISBN 0415122821.
^ Ravetz, Jerome Raymond (1996). Scientific Knowledge and Its Social Problems. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 1560008512.
^ (Gower 1996)
^ (see e.g., Ravetz, p. 182 fn. 1)
^ Ravetz, p. 185
^ a b Gower, p. 138
^ Gower, p. 7
^ Ravetz p. 181 et. seq. (Chapter Six: "Facts and their evolution")
^ Cassell, Eric J. The Nature of Suffering and the Goals of Medicine Oxford University Press. Retrieved 16 May 2007.
^ (Ravetz 1996)
^ Ed. note: this section of the article emphasizes common law jurisprudence (as primarily represented in Anglo-American based legal tradition). Nevertheless, the principles described herein have analogous treatment in other legal systems (such as civil law systems) as well.
^ Estrich, Willis Albert (1952). American Jurisprudence: A Comprehensive Text Statement of American Case Law. Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Company.
^ Elkouri, Frank (2003). How Arbitration Works. BNA Books. ISBN 1-57018-335-X.p. 305
^ Bishin, William R. (1972). Law Language and Ethics: An Introduction to Law and Legal Method. Foundation Press. Original from the University of Michigan Digitized March 24, 2006.p. 277
^ The Yale Law Journal: Volume 7. Yale Law Journal Co. 1898.
^ Per Lord Shaw of Dunfermline, Clarke v. Edinburgh and District Tramways Co., 1919 S.C.(H.L.) 35, at p 36.
^ Merrill, John Houston (1895). The American and English Encyclopedia of Law. E. Thompson. Original from Harvard University Digitized April 26, 2007.
^ Bennett, Wayne W. (2003). Criminal Investigation. Thomson Wadsworth. ISBN 0534615244.
^ Roy W. McDonald, Alternative Pleading in the United States: I Columbia Law Review, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Apr., 1952), pp. 443-478
^ (McDonald 1952)
 
Enough. What's the point? No, don't answer. Fact is a word, a 4 letter word. If you want to debate philosophy or semantics is this the forum? Perhaps my English is not to your rigorous standards, perhaps my use of a single word offended you. It was not meant to. If you think the post has no merit, then please ignore it.
 
Not all perceive patterns and markets in the same way. Our views are individual subjective opinions. therefore a global statement is not accurate.



I agree, we see things in different ways. By the way, “a global statement is not accurate” is a global statement, which means ... Think about it!
 
Top