Forum Archive Index - May 2001

[jerrold poh <pohj@ihug.co.nz>]

brian,

sorry about my last post, i guess on the internet it's hard to write how i
would say it talking out loud, and should've taken a more ...  "flatter"
aproach.

anyways, you hit the nail on the head.  

i find if you analyse anything in too finer detail, you're bound to see things
which don't make sence (just ask any physicists about quantum mechanics :) ).

in the case of quantum mechanics, and in investing, if they're methods
avaliable that work (ie, the copperhaegen intepretation vs. multiple universe
theory ...  or fundementals vs technical analysis), why question them?


-- 
jerrold (pohj@ihug.co.nz)
gnupg public key avaliable


On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 10:05:46PM +1200, Brian Brakenridge wrote:
> Hi Jerrold: 
> 
> If technical and fundamental are both stupid what are your alternatives? What
> method do you practice?
> 
> If there are legends out there practicing both and making billions, maybe
> they are not so stupid, maybe it's simply the way you understand each method
> and apply it to your own personality.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Brian



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/          New Zealand's home for market investors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To remove yourself from this list, please use the form at
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/forum.shtml.