"you are more interested in incriminating my posts than you are with adding content of your own"
Actually, that was the content that I was interested in adding. I noticed no one pointed out that your support was weak and thus I felt that maybe someone should.
While I said I found it odd you didn't merely post a link to the beginning of the article, I never said it was unseemly.
As I have said, I have watched you, Elmer, Chipguy, Yousef, Doug, Charles R, Darbes, Niceguy, Engle, steve h, Joe, and many others banter back and fourth over the years and have been well versed in the style of each poster.
I do wonder why such an obvious oversight on your part occured when citing Tom's data (which is often questionable to begin with), but whether it was on purpose I have no I idea. It was however deceptive to post inaccurate data and not check your facts or give the real story. Whether you meant to deceive or not isn't for me to decide. People should have an opportunity to see the real truth.
However, your reply may suggest a guilty conscience talking.
Who knows?
Tim
PS I'll go back to lurking, and sorry if I hurt people's feelings if I point out obvious errors and omissions. I have little interest if they are on purpose or not. Bad data is deceptive regardless of intent.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
