Spectrum derivative (or spectrum acceleration) - page 26
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
By the way, at the beginning of your appearance here (under the nickname trollolo) you were much more articulate, one might say by an order of magnitude. And then you went back to being inarticulate. Sorry, I can't help you as I don't understand what you need.
I can take down LeoV's posts - but what difference will it make?
By the way, at the beginning of your appearance here (under the nickname trollolo) you were much more articulate, one might say by an order of magnitude. And then you went back to being inarticulate. Sorry, I can't help you as I don't understand what you need.
I could take down LeoV's posts - but what difference would that make?
And who needs it this clarity, shit all covered, and clarity is worth the effort, which can be a couple of posts, people reading the same bite on this trash, and that clearly trying to convey all because of a couple of vile statements flushed into the toilet. People are interested in registration terms and the number of posts but they don't think that discussions are unprofitable for someone. Either calculations or something else is unclear. Well, maybe the forum will be useful for me, I want to fill a dozen people in here with links from other resources)))) Who knows maybe it will succeed.
By the way, at the beginning of your appearance here (under the nickname trollolo) you were much more articulate, one might say by an order of magnitude. And then you went back to being inarticulate. Sorry, I can't help you as I don't understand what you need.
I can take down LeoV's posts - but what difference will it make?
I'd rather tear down the whole thread. So you can have a clean head.
Wrong. There's a lot less flubber in the clear threads and they're better looked after. And the flooding is expelled by contributors and contributors themselves. Look, for example, in the branches about market phenomena, Prival'a, "In follow-up" [spelling saved by me].
People look at the length of registration and the number of posts, but they don't think it's just not profitable to discuss.
Bullshit, I'm sorry.
I have long suggested that the administration remove the hell of this rating and ready to be the first to refuse to show this figure.
Stop repeating already familiar arguments.
Vinin: I would prefer to tear down the whole thread. So that one could have a clear brain.
It would be a good idea to ask the topicstarter. If he doesn't mind, of course.
Trollolo, just for you:
I, in my turn, adhering to the theory of existential dualism, will say the following: objectively and correctly answer the question which you persist in discussing here, only you can, having understood the heights of karmic essence and having understood the sense of human existence as a whole, since the substationality of a mental condition of an idealizing subject is stated by the unity of transcendental perception, which in its turn leads to the local conflict based on seemingly simple statement that it seems to be pro
In fact, the language is about the same as yours ))))
Wrong. The intelligible threads have a lot less flubber, they have better surveillance. And the flooding is expelled by the authors and contributors themselves. Look, for example, in the branches about market phenomena, Prival'a, "In follow-up" [spelling saved by me].
Bullshit, sorry.
I have long suggested to the administration that they remove the hell out of this ranking and I am prepared to be the first to refuse to show this figure.
Stop repeating familiar arguments.
It would be a good idea to ask the topicstarter. If he doesn't mind, of course.
let's tear down all the branches (just kidding). it's a professional's decision))))))))
You'd better give us a criterion that says that branch is unpromising and that branch is promising.
Many people here claim to be "experts", but they do not show formalization of their thoughts, how is this different from that?
You know you're overreacting, don't you? Do you want this branch or not? If you say you need it, we won't touch it.
If the criterion is that this branch is unpromising and that branch is promising, then give me a criterion.
In the first post of this topic there is a link to a completely inarticulate branch on MACD derivatives (why? Have you thoroughly understood what MACD is before differentiating it?), and then follows: "I want to know who investigated this issue and how deep it is, I also wonder about phase observations" (without giving a clear definition of the phase). Well obviously the thread will turn into a mockery of common sense.
Many people here claim to be "experts" but do not show formalization of their thoughts, how is this different from that?
No need to talk about "many" without naming names.
You know what you're doing. Do you need this thread or not?
In the first post of this branch, there is a link to a completely inarticulate branch on MACD derivatives (why? Have you thoroughly understood what MACD is before differentiating it?), and then follows this: "I want to know who investigated this issue and how deep it is, I also wonder about phase observations" (without specifying the phase name in this case). Well obviously the thread is going to turn into a mockery of common sense.
No need to talk about "many" without naming names.
I think it is not for me to say that everything should be so simple and elementary. If I proposed a method, but do not know how to call it, but it is similar to the derivative, then as logical to call the branch, so I called it, attached a file with ideas, there is only a simple page with calculations, which showed that the recovery values can be read from different frequencies, but no one even looked at it.
By the way, Alexei, here's a thread about which they also said it was bullshit, but after the middle part of the discussion changed their minds, if no one sees the point (and it is not so obvious at first glance, and understandably so), it's not my fault, maybe later, say on page 101 (as is customary here) people will change their minds.
https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/122782/page43
ps - forgot to add, a branch as it needs, I still have it to refer to other resources, and here I'm not over, so do not tear down, I'm against it, unless you really want my opinion.Generally, all my branches, do not need to tear, I do not blindly started them, they are important to me.