I don’t know why this topic is being discussed. It all started when questions were asked in the XAO Analysis thread about my recent forecasts I’d posted up. Interestingly I had decided to truncate posting for a while in March, and had in fact intended to just keep up a small pulse on a few threads since I’d received some PMs requesting me to post up my thoughts every so often.
I had deliberately avoided having a direct confrontation with tech for a very long time (years on fact). In reflection I could have been more dignified in my response in this thread I suppose, and for that I’m sorry that others saw an unpleasant outburst. I just felt compelled to expose what was really going on, and call a spade a spade.
Having had time to reflect on this, I asked myself, “what’s the point of all this?” My only interest has been to contribute ideas in an open and constructive way. My intentions were positive and to offer some food for thought. Apparently some people are not very tolerant or appreciative of anything that is “unorthodox” around here, and would prefer to censor anything that doesn’t conform to their view of the world. I believe the interactions I have had with tech are negative and destructive, hence I have resolved to cease such intersections and focus on the positive.
It also strikes me as supremely ironic when people who are rooted in conventional thinking try to talk with authority about a subject they haven’t fully researched or investigated. They can’t even marshal a logically argued case, but resort to assertion and repetition just like a heckler in a crowd. Remember the adage “if a lie is repeated often enough, it becomes the truth”.
What I see is summed up very well by “Trade IT” is that he sees two people with different systems – chalk and cheese. I have never attacked tech’s system or approach, although I have recognised flaws in it. So, I don’t see the benefit of his “inquisition” here since he isn’t arguing logically, and certainly in my view is not helping the conveying of an involved topic. He doesn’t address any of the logical arguments or counter arguments raised here, nor does he effectively raise a well marshalled and formulated logical critique. So what’s the point of all this?
How do we determine “reliability” of any system objectively? I don’t think this is possible, for what objective measure is there that will be reliable for all times into the future? I don’t accept that the “orthodox” method of “back testing” constitutes an objective proof, or that these programmed methods guarantee future results.
How do we demonstrate “effectiveness” of any system or approach? I would have thought that posting a price and time objective ahead of time would constitute and edge if the results were consistent?
Given the examples I’ve put up, are these not evidence of the “effectiveness”, and if they are not, then what would constitute such “effectiveness”. Who is to define this? Who sets the standard? How do we guarantee that any standard is truly “objective”?
If two or more paradigms are involved which are not compatible, how can a meaningful discussion take place. I would argue that such an interchange is unlikely to reach an agreed standard that is acceptable to the other (and so far this has not been achieved for several years now). This is because the belief systems and values are so different for each paradigm, and is not unlike expecting people of different religions to find common ground.
However, being able to both perceive this “timescape” and the way markets vibrate through it kind of makes it hard to reverse my thinking and blank out my knowledge and return to the way the majority looks at the market (it’s a bit like Columbus sailing around the world and trying to return honestly to embracing the “flat earth” orthodoxy). Is this what my detractors want?
Then we see right below the chart that I was requested to put up, (and did so with very limited time, but in a sprit of goodwill stayed up very late to get this done) a totally ignorant and provocative comment made by one of my long term nemeses – the prying “Waysolid” who wants to spy into my private affairs no less - with insulting crap like “here are my secret dates”… even after the significant effort I’ve put in to explain a monumentally complex beast. This petty nonsense comes out yet again.
What this kind of comment shows is that in “their” view it’s not ok for me to communicate with people who are interested in the topics I cover as I have done for quite a while now quietly in the background, actually ignoring tech for months until now, and it’s ok for them to attack my integrity and approach without responsibility for their actions, in any way they like with no logic in their sleights, and they believe they have every right to do this.
It’s like the medical profession where you are a specialist in a particular field, or like the legal profession where you are say a Family law barrister, or a constitutional lawyer for example trying to explain detailed concepts in your speciality to those who are interested and who have specific questions in this specialist area.
Then someone barrels in attacking your precise terms of your discipline making fun of it, but are not interested or versed in the field at all and are not prepared to contribute anything constructive about it. I don’t have a problem if people want to marshal a logically structured well researched critique. The fact is that I have attempted to respond with comments that are as accessible as I can make them, in detail.
Surely anyone reading through the body of my work on ASF can hardly claim I have not actively made every effort to help in a variety of areas, freely and in detail. Now I find this isn’t even enough, they want my blood too, to discredit everything I do, and add abuse on top.
Is this a kind of Spanish inquisition? - must I recant my “heresy”, is that the idea? If I believed what my chief detractors are saying, I would have to agree that black is white, day is night, the earth is flat, and Santa clause and the Easter bunny are real.
So if I understand the conclusion the detractors and spoilers have made, my approach just doesn’t work, it is ineffective, it is not able to be applied consistently, and that I should abandon all my methods. I also take it that it is not fine for me to post any of my “heresy” either, even if I do so to a select audience on the sidelines as I have, or I will continue to be harassed, abused and discredited without mercy, huh?
What nonsense. I have been more than patient for the most part, I have contributed knowledge freely and without reward, only to yet again receive abuse for my efforts from people who don’t even bother to discuss constructively or even have a genuine interest in the pursuit of knowledge. What do I gain from this? Answer – Having my time wasted and my integrity attacked with specious nonsense and abuse laden PMs. (other than some good discussions with some notable people, and having made some friendships that I value.)
People said forecasting couldn’t work for Elliott Wave for instance (tech was one of these for a long time before his recent back flip), and yet people like Prechter and Neely defied the odds and made significant and accurate calls, just look them up on the net and do some research.
As my parting final comment, to the minority who actually think, consider this. Have a look at the forecasts that have been posted as objectively as you can. It is up to you to decide if it is all a fluke and put it down to sheer luck and a series of “black swan” events (an unusual statistical distribution like winning lotto), or that there is possibility a modicum of truth in what I have said.
That’s it, I intended to withdraw with a lower profile in March, and said I’d reduce my posts to select areas. Even when I did this, I was hounded time after time by Tech (just look back through the history and you’ll see the pattern of incessant baiting), and I endured this not responding for months. When I finally responded on this thread I’m characterised as the bad guy and instigator. What crap. Some may see this as a personal bout between tech and I, (chops characterised this point of view with his trademark humour) but this is not so. This is a calculated vendetta by tech since wavepicker and I have intelligently questioned his uncritical promotion of his buddies and his system at the expense of balanced appraisals.
Time for me to focus on what matters, and this petty nonsense isn’t it.
