--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], anony_sleuth_ff <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" > <shempmcgurk@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], anony_sleuth_ff > <no_reply@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > <snip> > > > > > [I wrote:] > > > > > > > If so, you're aware that what the newspapers were > > > > > > > reporting was that large numbers of financial agencies > > > > > > > around the world were investigating the anomalous > > > > > > > trades. I'm fairly confident that if it had all been > > > > > > > mere speculation and "irrelevant," they wouldn't have > > > > > > > bothered. > > > > Many things that are investigated turn out to be insignificant. > > To say that an investigation legitimately creates confidence in > > wrongdoing is parallel to saying someone is automatically guilty > > because they are as suspect in an investigation -- prior to > > indictment, prior to trial. > > Except, of course, that I never said any such thing. > Like Barry and Shemp, you seem unable to hold a > discussion without putting words in other people's > mouths.
I am not putting words in your mouth. You said: If so, you're aware that what the newspapers were > > > > > > reporting was that large numbers of financial agencies > > > > > > around the world were investigating the anomalous > > > > > > trades. I'm fairly CONFIDENT that if it had all been > > > > > > mere speculation and "irrelevant," they wouldn't have > > > > > > bothered. [caps added] To me that implies a view that if there is smoke, you are CONFIDENT there is a fire. If thats not what you meant, ok. Clarify it. But its what was impled to me. >in response to your attempt > to pooh-pooh the idea that there had been any such > anomalies. First, how many times are you going to misunderstand my position. Its not that difficult Judy. I will repeat it more slowly if that helps. I am not "pooh-pooh the idea that there had been any such anomalies." Indeed I am interested to see such. I am quite open to the possibility that itoccured. Just show me what trades, what days and time. etc. Or cites pointing to specific statistical analysis. Its really not that hard of a position to understand. > > > > The person I was responding to above, and several > > > others--yourself included, earlier--have been** trying > > > to say there wasn't anything unusual about the stock > > > market activity prior to 9/11. > > > > Quite untrue. > > Well, no, as noted, you've been pooh-poohing the whole > notion. All i can guess is that you have a mental block and cannot read whats written. How many times are you going to misunderstand my position? Its not that difficult Judy. I will repeat it more slowly if that helps. I am not "pooh-pooh the idea that there had been any such anomalies." Indeed I am interested to see such. I am quite open to the possibility that itoccured. Just show me what trades, what days and time. etc. Or cites pointing to specific statistical analysis. Its really not that hard of a position to understand. > Being a major respondent, I am quite open to the > > possibility that there was statistically significant anomolies in > > the stock or options markets prior to 9/11. I have said so > > repeatededly. > > What we have asked for is some actual data and analysis cites. All > > that has been provided are some articles citing some investigations > > and sucpicions, and several ambiguously defined "small trades." > > And the video, from where this discussion started, clearly sliced > > and diced the data. > > > Thus a call for the actual data and analysis to see > > upon what the claims of "unusual" are. > > And as I've already pointed out, there's *enough* > information in the news reports for you to research > the anomalies. OK. maybe inyour world it appears to be. But Ideal in such data every day and I state definatively that you actually need to identify the specific stock or options, their date and time of the trades, and the volumes for me to be able to find them in the raw tick data and look at them in the context of the longer range trading patterns of that securtity. Tell me, in your world, how would you conduct statistical analysis on a security without knowing what it is, when the trades in quesion occurred? > > My whole point has simple been, > > that what "appears" unusual to the naive may be quite normal, aka > > within the main body of a normal distribution. > > Which is why I pointed out that *experts*--not "the > naive"--considered the anomalies significant enough to > warrant investigations. Yes. Agreed. There was enough preliminary findings to warrant further investigation. And what did the investigations find? That is what I am asking. No results of any investigation has been cited, except the 9/11 commission which said nothing conclusive could be found. (Not to say that means no statisticaly significant anomolous trades occurred, I am open to the possibility, but that no one has demonstrated such yet.) > So what you have to show is that the experts were wrong. Tell me the conclusions of any expert, their reasoning, cites to their data etc then I can begin to present some opinion. You appear to be saying that some experts started an investigation, no results have been reported, and you wnat me to tell you where the experts are wrong. If thats what you are asking, as it appears, I hope you can see how none-sensical it is. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
