A voice of reason.
LOL
I think I said âsemanticsâ like 8,457 posts ago.
Again, you are trying to disprove a verb. A descriptive term.
And again, hereâs a point blank question. Last time I asked it, you cherry picked the post.
Aside from what caused the action, what descriptive term would be preferable
to you when price moves for an extended period of time in a given direction?
agreed, makes sense.
cept for the whole santa part. if hes at my local mall how could he be at yours?
a nice way of looking at it
Quantum physics;)
Darn! I thought Santa was haunting me 
No. We are not both right. âTrendâ does not exist. And no, we all do not base our trading on our beliefs. I base my trading on observable facts.
if you want to say that trend don´t exist you should start by tell us your own definition of trend and then tell us why it don´t existâŚ
Thatâs an example of why âtrendâ is a myth. How many higher lows does it take to define an uptrend? On what time frame? We are working in 2 dimensions, time and price. The definition of âtrendâ should be simple, such as, âif the difference in price from time1 to time2 is X, then a trend existsâ. A definition like that would do away with the time frame âmythâ.
If "trendâ existed, there would be no question, it would be a known. The question of âwhy donât more mutual funds beat the index?â still looms large. Mutual funds have the money to hire the best and the brightest not to mention buy the best equipment and information available.
The statement that perhaps you donât know what the âtrendâ is until it is over is still worth exploring.
That would be contradictory.
âTrendâ is being used as a noun not a verb.
Instead of using âdescriptiveâ language, one could use precise language such as, âFrom time1 to time2, the difference in closing prices was N pips.â This would be time frame independent and given the same data, there could be no debate because it would either be true or false.
The forex jungle is so dangerous why stick to our old conventional way. and [B][U]not think out of the box[/U][/B] to survive.
Ray, thatâs really the point. 
There have been plenty of people in this forum who where trying to get that across to people.
If people choose to stay where they are & pile all that stuff into their heads & do what the majority is doing & think what the majority is thinking theyâll receive what the majority is receiving.
Comments from those people like âbeing holyâ only re-enforce my view.
Touche 
Yes, you base your trading on facts, as do I. However, we both look at the very same chart, and yet we could very well find ourselves on opposite sides of a trade.
The facts are:
Price exists.
Price increases.
Price decreases.
Everything else is subjective to the individual trader.
However you define your trading is based solely on your own interpretation of the facts we both see. By nature of the very idea that we interpret it different is the only reason the market exists in the first place.
Once again, I see a trend in the charts. I am right.
You see no trend in the charts. You are right.
And the beauty that lies within the subjective nature of the markets is that it allows two opposing ideas to be correct.
How do I know this? Results.
Iâm assuming you are profitable, as am I, in the markets. One could argue that a trader is either ârightâ or âwrongâ depending on whether he is winning or losing in the markets. One cannot be âwrongâ and yet still profit from the markets.
Read the text above.
con¡cept (knspt)
n.
- A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences.
- [B]Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion. [/B]
Havenât I been saying TREND IS A CONCEPT all along?
[B]The purpose of this thread is to show that TREND is a concept that only exists in the mind of the trader and therefore a MYTH.[/B]
No one is disagreeing that trend is a subjective concept framed only in oneâs mind.
The only disagreement is the validity that such a concept can be successfully used to profit in the markets.
You say trends do not exist. Impossible, I say, as one can profit from such a concept. Therefore, they exist. Even if it is only in the mind of the individual trader that is trading his own interpretation of the concept.
Facts:
Price exists.
Price changes.
A trader is not ârightâ or âwrongâ. A trader is either profitable or unprofitable.
Let us be precise in our use of language. You do not see a âtrendâ in the chart. You see the chart, interpret what you see and you call it âtrendâ. This is not semantics. This is precision and accuracy.
Actually, they are disagreeing. Read this thread.
Who is disagreeing with that?
This is what I stated in post #1:
The purpose of this thread is to show that TREND is a concept that [I][B]only exists in the mind of the trader[/B][/I] and therefore a MYTH.
You just agreed with me.
Thatâs fair to say.
However, that doesnât mean the trend does not exist or that it is not real. It existed in my own mind. Subjective elements are very real in the mind of the beholder. Simply because two people do not experience the same effect when looking at the same facts, does not disprove either of their realities.
I say trends exist. You say trends do not exist.
We are both right.
Please be accurate and precise when you quote someone.
This is what I said in post #1:
The purpose of this thread is to show that TREND is a concept that only exists in the mind of the trader and therefore a MYTH.
âTREND is a concept that only exists in the mind of the traderâ.
No problem.
There ya go. I was 100% precise and accurate.