Back to www.cobrasmarketview.com

02/03/2012 Intraday Watering

SB73
Posts: 1265
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:20 pm

Re: 02/03/2012 Intraday Watering

Post by SB73 »

Once again we close at the HOD. Dumping more longs right before close...keeping some position for Monday gap up.
User avatar
jarbo456
Posts: 2218
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2011 9:19 am
Location: New York, NY

Re: 02/03/2012 Intraday Watering

Post by jarbo456 »

pretty nutty day. looks like close at the high of the day.

have a good weekend ya'll or on the weekend watering board for you life-less folks like me. ;)
cougar
Posts: 1914
Joined: Fri May 20, 2011 9:25 am

Re: 02/03/2012 Intraday Watering

Post by cougar »

SWalsh wrote:
cougar wrote: Disraeli once whispered, privately, to an aide: “Watch that man! He means what he says!” That man was Otto von Bismarck. This cannot be said about SWalsh who, obviously, does not mean what he says. But ambiguity washes the Walsh…Thus, his apology is fully accepted.
Cougar, you'll pardon me if I ask for an explanation there? Perhaps I'm having a reading comprehension issue this time.
Why don’t you just drop it ?

OK…It’s not the reading, it’s the grammar:

You wrote this sentence, which was quoted many times after:“ I'm not familiar with what Cougar wrote but I received an e-mail telling me he claimed he could sell his indicators to institutions, but decided to offer them to the public for a pricey admission.” In the explicative sentence “cougar Wrote”, “Cougar” is the subject and “wrote” is the predicate. Therefore in a further sentence, as part of the same line of thoughts, “he” [nominative case] MUST refer to Cougar!

This is how grammar goes…
User avatar
Me XMan
Posts: 2014
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 12:01 pm

Re: 02/03/2012 Intraday Watering

Post by Me XMan »

You're doing well :D
SB73 wrote:Once again we close at the HOD. Dumping more longs right before close...keeping some position for Monday gap up.
User avatar
Petsamo
Posts: 3339
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 2:22 pm

Re: 02/03/2012 Intraday Watering

Post by Petsamo »

We have mixed signals

1.11 million last sell on IWM
1.02 million last buy on SPY

Have a great weekend everyone!
Twitter @jackwag0n
xglider
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:52 pm

Re: 02/03/2012 Intraday Watering

Post by xglider »

springheel_jack wrote:
xglider wrote:
Cobra wrote:this is not what I'd like to see for the close, although still fine for bulls.
Rounded top pattern?
It looks very much like a rounded top pattern but it's so small it probably shouldn't be treated as one I think.
Turned out to be a cup and handle with that pop at the end!
User avatar
Me XMan
Posts: 2014
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 12:01 pm

Re: 02/03/2012 Intraday Watering

Post by Me XMan »

When BB52x and SB73 covered then market will crack :D
KeiZai wrote:Still a lot of people is in short positions :roll: this is not a good sign...pullback will come when nobody expect it, my guess is over the weekend but dont know which one :lol:
User avatar
EvilTrader
Posts: 675
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:40 pm

Re: 02/03/2012 Intraday Watering

Post by EvilTrader »

There is an amazing divergence between Equity index and $NYMO (mcClellan Osc), crying for some decent pullback. :lol:
User avatar
Unique
Posts: 3911
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 3:19 pm

Re: 02/03/2012 Intraday Watering

Post by Unique »

EvilTrader wrote:There is an amazing divergence between Equity index and $NYMO (mcClellan Osc), crying for some decent pullback. :lol:
$NYMO not at extreme highs yet, I wonder how overextended we may get. July high at 1347...we're approaching it...then there's 1356.5
Restarted the AAPL blog into E-mini S&P 500 Trading Blog , see here: http://aapltechnicals.blogspot.ca/
User avatar
BullBear52x
Posts: 29606
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:47 pm

Re: 02/03/2012 Intraday Watering

Post by BullBear52x »

Me XMan wrote:When BB52x and SB73 covered then market will crack :D
KeiZai wrote:Still a lot of people is in short positions :roll: this is not a good sign...pullback will come when nobody expect it, my guess is over the weekend but dont know which one :lol:
He who laugh last, laugh louder for now heheheheheheh..... . this is what bull looks like Bull and this is bear = Bear
My comments are for entertainment/educational purpose only. NOT a trade advice.
SB73
Posts: 1265
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:20 pm

Re: 02/03/2012 Intraday Watering

Post by SB73 »

Me XMan wrote:When BB52x and SB73 covered then market will crack :D
KeiZai wrote:Still a lot of people is in short positions :roll: this is not a good sign...pullback will come when nobody expect it, my guess is over the weekend but dont know which one :lol:
I'm lost. Do you mean cover my long?
cuddgb
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 6:14 pm

Re: 02/03/2012 Intraday Watering

Post by cuddgb »

Looks like the BLS is moving the baseline on the jobs report since the boomers are retiring ...
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/ ... mber-real/
Wonder if things might shift on Monday
User avatar
99er
Posts: 3686
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:43 pm
Contact:

Re: 02/03/2012 Intraday Watering

Post by 99er »

"So where the hell is that dude?"

99er has moved to www.99ercharts.com because posting here, while always fun, became too much of a distraction during the day; I prefer to lurk here after hours to look at folks' charts. If you would like to see my charts, you can get full access to the new site for $1.00 a day. I trust that trolls and spammers (and wankers in general) won't spend that buck.

Come visit!
User avatar
SWalsh
Posts: 1266
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 5:07 am

Re: 02/03/2012 Intraday Watering

Post by SWalsh »

cougar wrote:
SWalsh wrote:
cougar wrote: Disraeli once whispered, privately, to an aide: “Watch that man! He means what he says!” That man was Otto von Bismarck. This cannot be said about SWalsh who, obviously, does not mean what he says. But ambiguity washes the Walsh…Thus, his apology is fully accepted.
Cougar, you'll pardon me if I ask for an explanation there? Perhaps I'm having a reading comprehension issue this time.
Why don’t you just drop it ?

OK…It’s not the reading, it’s the grammar:
Looks like it's a Kafka world out there where you may castigate an innocent man AND explain why incorrectly. This is a real hoot! That's the best you have and you are wrong!
You wrote this sentence, which was quoted many times after:“ I'm not familiar with what Cougar wrote but I received an e-mail telling me he claimed he could sell his indicators to institutions, but decided to offer them to the public for a pricey admission.” In the explicative sentence “cougar Wrote”, “Cougar” is the subject and “wrote” is the predicate. Therefore in a further sentence, as part of the same line of thoughts, “he” [nominative case] MUST refer to Cougar!

This is how grammar goes…
Sorry, but it doesn't.

"I'm" is short for "I am". The subject of the sentence is "I", and "am" is the predicate. There is no discussion on that issue. "Cougar" is the object of a prepositional phrase. The remaining is immaterial for the purpose of this discussion. I just felt the need for you to not be handing out flawed English lessons in case any children were reading the board.

Could I have written my words in perhaps better form? Of course I could have. But with positions on and three screens going and a portable, proper grammar isn't on my mind. And as a friend of mine with two PhDs from Yale once told me, "When someone corrects your grammar on the Internet it is tantamount to an admission that they long ago lost the argument".

You had no right whatsoever to castigate me as a speaker of ambiguous words. It is so demonstrably false that is almost reaches the heights of a racial slur. That was quite classless and especially for what was written which was understood by all. But I might need to forgive you as you just demonstrated extraordinarily poor reading comprehension.

And in the morning, to paraphrase Churchill, I shall still have my integrity. What will you have?

Bless your heart!
"I told you...................bring me everyone"...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrTsuvykUZk
User avatar
Cobra
Site Admin
Posts: 58558
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 10:29 pm

Re: 02/03/2012 Intraday Watering

Post by Cobra »

SWalsh wrote:
cougar wrote:
SWalsh wrote:
cougar wrote: Disraeli once whispered, privately, to an aide: “Watch that man! He means what he says!” That man was Otto von Bismarck. This cannot be said about SWalsh who, obviously, does not mean what he says. But ambiguity washes the Walsh…Thus, his apology is fully accepted.
Cougar, you'll pardon me if I ask for an explanation there? Perhaps I'm having a reading comprehension issue this time.
Why don’t you just drop it ?

OK…It’s not the reading, it’s the grammar:
Looks like it's a Kafka world out there where you may castigate an innocent man AND explain why incorrectly. This is a real hoot! That's the best you have and you are wrong!
You wrote this sentence, which was quoted many times after:“ I'm not familiar with what Cougar wrote but I received an e-mail telling me he claimed he could sell his indicators to institutions, but decided to offer them to the public for a pricey admission.” In the explicative sentence “cougar Wrote”, “Cougar” is the subject and “wrote” is the predicate. Therefore in a further sentence, as part of the same line of thoughts, “he” [nominative case] MUST refer to Cougar!

This is how grammar goes…
Sorry, but it doesn't.

"I'm" is short for "I am". The subject of the sentence is "I", and "am" is the predicate. There is no discussion on that issue. "Cougar" is the object of a prepositional phrase. The remaining is immaterial for the purpose of this discussion. I just felt the need for you to not be handing out flawed English lessons in case any children were reading the board.

Could I have written my words in perhaps better form? Of course I could have. But with positions on and three screens going and a portable, proper grammar isn't on my mind. And as a friend of mine with two PhDs from Yale once told me, "When someone corrects your grammar on the Internet it is tantamount to an admission that they long ago lost the argument".

You had no right whatsoever to castigate me as a speaker of ambiguous words. It is so demonstrably false that is almost reaches the heights of a racial slur. That was quite classless and especially for what was written which was understood by all. But I might need to forgive you as you just demonstrated extraordinarily poor reading comprehension.

And in the morning, to paraphrase Churchill, I shall still have my integrity. What will you have?

Bless your heart!
OK, guys, you're equal now.

SWalsh apologized 3 times, If Cougar didn't say anything about grammar, that'd be perfect. But since it happened. Please you two let it go, after all we have more important things to do than arguing grammar.

I'll close this thread. Thanks guys, really appreciate!

Like to read more of my commentaries? Please subscribe my Daily Market Report.
Subscribers can find all the members only posts HERE.
StockCharts members, please vote for me HERE, thanks.
Locked