--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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. All I said was that there were anomalies significant enough for there to be investigations *to see if there had been* any wrongdoing, in response to your attempt to pooh-pooh the idea that there had been any such anomalies. > > 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. 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. I haven't seen the video, nor have I cited it as support for anything I've said. > 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. > 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. So what you have to show is that the experts were wrong. 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/
