PHILThanks for the kind and accurate words. There is nothing wrong with describing why, the where and what is to be expected in PHIL. Supporting ones investment is not wrong. To suggest there is no illicit behavior in trading is wrong and proven to be so. Facts are facts. To suggest there is no bounce play in effect without support? Gets lost on the study or does it?.The view is that what is described, is in fact a weak attack on a study described in detail, yes imo.. That detail that was described is not wrong on all counts based off the support, provided with links and filings, etc.. There is / was a comparison provided to support that the Market is sic and in a major downtrend (DOW), whereas, PHIL is breaking out after a huge and very good Fibonacci retracement. The charts, text and data support those words in detail described. However, the words that suggest a cultic point of view don't point to the detail described, it describes the toxic negativity to a tee. That toxic data seems to be a theme that is so obvious, anyone that misses it should be void of trading.. Going so far and with disrespect to the data provided and to that which follows below in the charts to be cultic or just wrong, is sham-full.. .
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
