and so...., page-53

gann45 #all the time "Mind can make a hell of heaven or a heaven of hell." - Sree Swami Tapovanji Maharaj",
When I first saw this little ditty from the swami, which obviously impresses gann45 no end, I meditated thoughtful for sometime (about two and half seconds) and with sudden clarity of vision ... dismissed it as totally banal and much less insightful and deep than my two year olds, squeal and exclamation on arising from his new potty, a couple of minutes earlier, "Daddy,..Poo, daddy....not wee wee .....Daddddddy!" As I left the thread to portage....not wee wee, to our flush facility, I vowed to try and apply the ditty.
However, I have to tell you, with no amount of concentration was i able to make,.. the gently steaming piece of ....not wee wee...but smells like hell, transmute into a heavenly, dark rich chocolate,Turkish delight! Alas!
Anyone else have any more positive results, post them here, marked "Gann’s dotty barmy swami potty ditty competition", I'll sponsor a prize for the best, transmutational achievement. A year’s FREE subscription to HC. No wait, what the hell, make it ten. (Surewin72 barred entry, see below). (Is that ok with you really nice moderate Moderators! you wonderful people, who know no bias, and never chasten obviously mild, Tongus innus Cheekus postii from "bored with the thread bickering", and "uncharitable dissing" Hot Copperites.)
In case gann45 your till impressed, read this demystifying manual below, to see how insightful Barmy swami is,
Official Barmy Swami ditty demystification manual. reads as follows:

People can do good things, and have others and themselves experience these.
People can do bad things, and have others and themselves experience these, too!

The end.
Do you still think you need to love Cows, get munches for pulses, dress in orange and levitate, to be able to produce such banality. No you just need to be at least two years old, and be classified a Homo sapien.
I can't wait to see if you drop it now! Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. What a hoot.


gann45 #2710111 "A humble investor who does nothing more then sticking with the trend will make you look like a fool every time.
Most of you could have brought in +50% cheaper at the moment if this simple rule was observed. Now you require a 100% rally just to make breakeven… what a waste."

This chap likes trendy bendy rules and espouses ALL to follow simple rule, fancies itself a chartist/analyst with technical skills, but, is it smart enough to deduce..."What would happen to the index, if ALL market participants observed his "simple rule".
Please, shsh, no clues people. It's a little tricky, cos the rule becomes the market input, output and the bit in between. Come on gann45 the gauntlet is down...how well can you apply the theory, in practice?" You can assume we all see the light and apply the rule at the same time to all stock positions, and every stock has a slight up trend at the point of en mass compliance. Would Mr A. Humble, the barely vexed, infinitely successful fool maker, investor friend of Gann's, 1. Still be making money? Slowly? Rapidly? 2. Still be making fools infinitely successfully (everytime)? Would gann45 now consider this a market following trend, or one driven by fundamentals?
What now happens when one brave sole (let’s call her, Mary Mary Q), breaks ranks, and adopts a contrary investment strategy. Does plucky little Mary Mary Q start making money? Or, loose it all to the gannborg collective? Would Mr A. Humble and followers, now every time (thats 100% result, infinitely) make a fool of poor orphan Mary Mary Q?
Obviously, gann45, needs to be able to answer all these questions correctly for himself, if he is unable to, then HE and (we) have to draw the logical conclusion that his statement " make a fool, every time" may be falsified. But also remember, if you FOOLISHLY use infinitives in statements of fact, forever is a long-time to have to prove yourself right. Just one instance to the contrary and gann45's statement is a gonna, which because gann45 has given himself an infinite chance for this contrary instance to occur at SOME time,it is bound to happen, ergo, gann45 is logically wrong! gann45 over to you...... can you please explain, without weasaling, why your NOT wrong. If you can't, could you post "a humble" apology for posting false and misleading statements on HC, I’ll reciprocate obviously and adjust my position accordingly (and logically) if you provide reasonable evidence of your proof of theorum.

Can you hear his slide rule melting; he's going to need more than linked monitors and dual core computing for this one. Massive, parallel required.
gann45, try CERN, there set-ups pretty fast, and the numbers in the phone book ...sorry mate, what was that, oh yes I hears ya ...no worries,.... It's under "C", does that help.




market101 #2714225 "dwecke I am constantly stunned by the rubbish you bring up. Its just one assumption after another and probably all totally incorrect and once again a load of absolutle crap.
Its scary that you seem to actually beleive what you post.
Enough of it, your going on ignore."


market101 implies you shouldn't actually believe in what you post on HC. If he practices what he preach's then, be very suspicious of what he posts. You should of course, being upstanding HCites, always believe what you post, otherwise, like market101, you might be accused of misleading.
Hey market101, try explaining, that you didn't actually mean Dwecke, shouldn't believe in his posts. If you succeed, your post must have been trying to mislead, since what you wrote is not what you meant and you were therefore hiding your true intent. That’s quite a conundrum you created for yourself. I'll leave you to ponder whether you should believe in the content of any reply to this post you produce, or not. I have to, for reasons outlined, now automatically treat all your posts with healthy pinch of salt.
Someone who can do nothing but constantly lie, says " I tell you I am lying, honestly" You believe what?


Surewin72 #271088 "Wow, it looks good what you've written, too bad i don't have the time to read it or understand it."

One wonders, what exactly about what was written looked good to Surewin72, by his own admission (shoots his own foot) by letting on to having NOT read the afore mentioned written piece. I would suspect, given these facts, Surewin72 often needs a good deal of time to read and understand something. Advisable if you are going to post on issues in the future, Surewin72. Read, absorb, cogitate and then go ahead and comment. You can't just go straight to comment, and expect to maintain kudos. I know it’s hard, but make the effort, (there are of course quite legitimate reasons why, Surewin72, might not be able to achieve these goals, may I immediately apologise to you for not making allowances of these disabilities, and tarnishing your reputation unjustly).



dnyland # 2716541 "One pot to many?"

No actually, just enough to produce two wonderful sons, after I lost the other one to the surgeon’s scalpel. It had to go though, nasty hard bastards, the Big C club had taken up residence and the bloody murderers were threatening all sorts of unpleasantness in the neighbourhood if they weren't booted out immediately, with lodgings and all. Didn't think about it at the time, but the lead used in the clamshell, shielding the one pot i had left (and it was left, if you get my drift) from Mr Ionising radiation sent in to mop up gang members absent at time of the raid on the club house, may have come from the PEM mine. Fancy that my boys saved from annihilation by PEM miners!
Upshot, I'm still here, able to make you feel good about your HC posts, doesn't that give you a warm fuzzy feeling. By the way, an auxiliary and main verb would be handy if you want to use, the ? mark. Even if it’s constructed for rhetorical uses. I've obviously overlooked your indiscretion this time. Oh and the faint underlying theme of "intimated substance abuse" I'll let that slide too, for now! You’re not the only one, Surewin72 again demonstrates this vice amply with his latest imbecilic post. Check it out.

wormo #2715124 onespot
“I used to think like you in the days that LSD was popular “

Mate are you flat or round?, just trying to put you in a family thats all. Can't think like me anymore, never mind wormo old mate, clarity of thought and intelligence aren't everything, you'll get by ok, some of the other HC posters don't let it affect them, see above. At least you saw another side to yourself (assuming you’re a flat wormo, of course!) during your formative tab dropping experimental phase. They can't take that away from you. Do you still get flashbacks?



Surewin72 #2716756 "treehugginhippic.4p, what hava these posts got to do with cbh?"

Shoots the other foot this time,..Sarcastic dis of HC posters nic. Then throws stones in glass house, please check your (his) prior posts this thread. CBH content / relevance.......Nil. Result, both feet bleeding, cred shot to pieces; no disability obviously, just dense.
As far as ridiculing nics, try this little sum.
Sure (free from doubt or uncertainty, inevitable) + Win (gain a prize, come first - in competition) = ONE VERY DODGY RIGGED RESULT. (And, barring from gann's Barmy Swami comp! I hear Mugabe may need someone of your talents.)



Surewin72 #2716676 "The age-old argument, fundamental or techical? which one is better? it all depends on which one comes first, chicken or egg?

What a sucker, back for more. Where do I start with this post, well at least he is trying I suppose, but boy does he come unstuck. Grammar, same as dnyland, uses ? mark with no main or auxiliary verb, so not a question "techically" [sic] really. Does much better with next use of ? mark, manages to include a which, a one and a better. Goodstuff. Alas, falls flat on his face again, next ? mark used. Oh, well I think we have established, this tool’s not to sharp! Although, I get the impression, particularly from this post, that he THINKS, he could cut more than soggy bog paper. Sorry, anyone who still muses over whether a chicken egg could have evolved in isolation from a similarly evolving chicken, is well, a little foggy up top. It can be corrected with remedial work though, so all is not lost. Surewin72, try reading "Voyage of the Beagle first", and then moving on via, "On the Origin of Species....." (All hail and respect to you CD), to more modern classics, works by Dawkins for example, Blind Watch Maker, Out of Eden, Unweaving the Rainbow. If your studious, you soon will learn were the real debates lie. I don't care what you were taught, you can't get this stuff from the back of Cornflakes packets and readers digest, so there is no point trying.

Just an aside Surewin72, If you do have an intimate knowledge of the history of the debate between, what are often seen as conflicting (No, never. Just wouldn't get any impression of hostility between these two camps on HC, ridiculous) schools of thought with regard to investment strategies. In the red corner, Fundamentals, ok here’s the co. lets price the sucker, what’s it got, what’s it going to get for what it’s got, what does it owe, what is it likely to owe etc etc etc etc ad nausea, and in the blue corner Technical (from Greek for Arty Farty) Analysis of a company's and other charted trends (historical or a priori knowledge), and chicken entrails, and whether Armstrongs cycling around the Gazebo, with Fibinacci's girlfriend on board,tonight, and if the Stars and planets are aligned in the correct Constellation to allow a proper retrace, and retest followed by retrenchment, and then take-off through critical support bandages, to reach Outer earth orbit by 3.59pm 14th April 2017, precisely, (just in case you want to pop off and put the kettle on). Do be a love and post it up.
That last predictive tool I mentioned, basically Astrology, was IN ALL SERIOUSNESS, being discussed IN ALL SERIOUSNESS, by the apparently wisest most respected sage of the chartist posters over on DOW thread, I’ll let you decide who that might be. The posts are historical fact anyway, few weeks ago, if you fancy a trawl, see for yourself. Sage tried hard to obtain discussed Lunar cycle charts, so he could add to his collection of analysis charts. The sucky sucky underling couldn't fit the charts on a photocopier unfortunately so was unable to post or send them to wise one. Are well I suppose he might miss predicting the great bull run of 2313, now his data set is incomplete. God Damn, Astrology, and no-one, no-one batted an eye lid. Guess it’s not the message; it’s the charisma that counts.



Ok thats warmed up the old brain box a bit, nothing like a gentle warm up and stretch before the hard stuff. No, you lot have suffered enough, back to the Uni stuff for some more assignment work, I'll enjoy popping back for updates on the CBH (Control Bole Height) thread, right ILovetrees,...."rapidly spreading canopy", you know your Gums, I can teeeeeeeellll. IFA, by any chance?

Ok, let fly the dogs of war, I expect a few slings and arrows, but really my point is made, there really is no need for retaliatory strikes, unless you wish to prove my point.
I care no more tonight one way or tuther, the smile my beautiful wife just gave me, tells me my Pots getting drained tonight. And on nights like that, I don't even care if BHP and Rio don't go up in London and NY and my hecs debt stretches out for a few more years.

Now where's my miners helmet...........Daddies going tunneling!!!