The Intraday US Stock Market Discussion Board
https://bbs.cobrasmarketview.com/
Why don’t you just drop it ?SWalsh wrote:Cougar, you'll pardon me if I ask for an explanation there? Perhaps I'm having a reading comprehension issue this time.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.
SB73 wrote:Once again we close at the HOD. Dumping more longs right before close...keeping some position for Monday gap up.
Turned out to be a cup and handle with that pop at the end!springheel_jack wrote:It looks very much like a rounded top pattern but it's so small it probably shouldn't be treated as one I think.xglider wrote:Rounded top pattern?Cobra wrote:this is not what I'd like to see for the close, although still fine for bulls.
KeiZai wrote:Still a lot of people is in short positionsthis is not a good sign...pullback will come when nobody expect it, my guess is over the weekend but dont know which one
$NYMO not at extreme highs yet, I wonder how overextended we may get. July high at 1347...we're approaching it...then there's 1356.5EvilTrader wrote:There is an amazing divergence between Equity index and $NYMO (mcClellan Osc), crying for some decent pullback.
He who laugh last, laugh louder for now heheheheheheh..... . this is what bull looks like Bull and this is bear = BearMe XMan wrote:When BB52x and SB73 covered then market will crack
KeiZai wrote:Still a lot of people is in short positions
I'm lost. Do you mean cover my long?Me XMan wrote:When BB52x and SB73 covered then market will crack
KeiZai wrote:Still a lot of people is in short positions
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!cougar wrote:Why don’t you just drop it ?SWalsh wrote:Cougar, you'll pardon me if I ask for an explanation there? Perhaps I'm having a reading comprehension issue this time.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.
OK…It’s not the reading, it’s the grammar:
Sorry, but it doesn't.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…
OK, guys, you're equal now.SWalsh wrote: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!cougar wrote:Why don’t you just drop it ?SWalsh wrote:Cougar, you'll pardon me if I ask for an explanation there? Perhaps I'm having a reading comprehension issue this time.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.
OK…It’s not the reading, it’s the grammar:
Sorry, but it doesn't.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…
"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!