--- In [email protected], anony_sleuth_ff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], anony_sleuth_ff <no_reply@> > > wrote: <snip> > > > 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.
Now find where I said I was confident of wrongdoing (the words you put in my mouth). <snip> > > > 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. And if *you* can't find them from the information in the articles, you expect *me* to be able to? <snip> > > > 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. No results have been made public that I'm aware of. The 9/11 commission did not, of course, say nothing conclusive could be found. You made that up. What they said (for the, oh, fourth or fifth time now) was that there were "innocuous explanations" for the anomalies. But they didn't say what those explanations were, so we have no way of knowing whether there were, in fact, explanations, and if so, whether they were, in fact, "innocuous." What we *do* know is that the 9/11 commission considered the anomalies significant enough to *require* explanation. They claim to have found explanations that satisfy them. But they seem to think we should be willing to take that on faith. <snip> > 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. No, that is not, as you well know, what I'm asking. I'm not asking anything. I'm pointing out that it's nonsensical for you to ask *me* to prove the experts were right in thinking there were anomalies significant enough to warrant investigation. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 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/
