Apple stock claws back to very nearly where it was before the revenue revision

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 30
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    echosonic said:
    melgross said:
    Ulukila said:
    Stock is at Fibonacci 61.80 and going up again.Looks good.  A lot of traders will buy again.
    Forget that numerology. It’s all crap. These guys are wrong as often as they are right. They then come up with some other nonsense to explain why their prediction was wrong. Sheesh! Shoulders, triangles, necks and other stupid charting methods have nothing to do with anything.
    233...also a fibonacci number...and people really understood fibonacci they would know that there's more success long term playing on THAT than anything else.
    Oh, for crying out loud, what’s wrong with you people? Fibonacci has nothing to do with the stock market, and if YOU had any idea of either, you wouldn’t be here stating this nonsense.
    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 22 of 30
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,697member
    That particular comment isn’t specifically political.   Some people don’t like Warren Buffett’s politics, but his opinions are mentioned often.  And he’s often correct.  
    “Rah rah drumpf” is not specifically political? Come on.
    If, in that sentence first quoted, you replaced “President Trump” with “Warren Buffett” would you still think it was political?

    I’m happy to see the stock going up again, but it has a long way to go to get back to where it was just a few months ago. 
    How is the name of a major Apple stock investor even remotely comparable with a POTUS?
    ronn
  • Reply 23 of 30
    aknabiaknabi Posts: 211member
    iOS_Guy80 said:
    As good as money in the bank, CD or any savings account. Apple $225 end of year.
    Well then if so, like money in the bank insured by the FDIC, you willing to insure me for any loses?
  • Reply 24 of 30
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    cgWerks said:
    melgross said:
    With all the cheer about this little rise, it needs to be understood in the context of where it began, which was at the $233 level, and moving higher.
    Yeah... I must be missing something about this article. It isn't even close to where it was before the letter.

    Mike Wuerthele said:
    Invoking the guy's name is not against the forum rules.
    At this point, I'm a bit unclear about the rules (or at least where the line is). Politics is part of life and numerous articles are quite political in nature, as are some of the comments.

    I'm not sure I get what's wrong with that, as I'd think the point would be... that for some reason, some people can't seem to politely discuss politics or religion, but then why not police/ban the bad behavior, not eliminate those topics (which are, IMO, the most important of topics there are)?

    I get that it's a tech forum, and not wanting to run too wildly off-topic, but if the article itself is related... then we just turn comments off or pretend it isn't political? And, it isn't like the bad-behavior of some is limited to political articles either.

    I guess it's your forum, but it would be nice to know if there is some real line, or if is it like speeding tickets, where some small percentage get smacked down to keep us all on our toes? :)
    The trump reference had zero to do with AAPL's recovery and was political trolling.
    retrogustoronnfastasleep
  • Reply 25 of 30
    retrogustoretrogusto Posts: 1,102member
    If a comment’s sole purpose is to show support for a politician, especially a highly polarizing one, it’s a political comment. “Nancy Pelosi is so smart—she’s the only one who can keep our economy from tanking” is a political comment. “Warren Buffett is so smart—he’s the only one who can keep our economy from tanking” is not. Each is about as relevant to this article as the comment in question here. 
    edited January 2019 ronn
  • Reply 26 of 30
    MacPro said:
    That particular comment isn’t specifically political.   Some people don’t like Warren Buffett’s politics, but his opinions are mentioned often.  And he’s often correct.  
    “Rah rah drumpf” is not specifically political? Come on.
    If, in that sentence first quoted, you replaced “President Trump” with “Warren Buffett” would you still think it was political?

    I’m happy to see the stock going up again, but it has a long way to go to get back to where it was just a few months ago. 
    How is the name of a major Apple stock investor even remotely comparable with a POTUS?
    Who said the names are comparable? All I’m asking is if the sentence is political depending on whose name is used.  If “George Clooney” or “MacPro” or “I” replaced “Donald Trump” would it still be political? I say, no. 

    If if the sentence was “Obama said he likes the cherry blossoms” that sentence isn’t political just because we used the name ”Obama”. Simply because Trump is currently the President of the United States doesn’t mean every mention of his name has political meaning or reference. 
    edited January 2019 cgWerks
  • Reply 27 of 30
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    If a comment’s sole purpose is to show support for a politician, especially a highly polarizing one, it’s a political comment. “Nancy Pelosi is so smart—she’s the only one who can keep our economy from tanking” is a political comment. “Warren Buffett is so smart—he’s the only one who can keep our economy from tanking” is not. Each is about as relevant to this article as the comment in question here. 
    Each statement is about the same in value, and equal politically. Relevance to the real world problem is different. It’s more likely that Pelosi, as someone who pulls the strings of power, can affect the economic situation much than Buffet, who just invests money, the amount of which, when compared to the economy, is trivial.
  • Reply 28 of 30
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 2,783member
    DAalseth said:
    DAalseth said:
    tbornot said:
    President Trump said the stock correction was a gift for those wanting to buy.  Correct again!
    I come here to get away from political BS.
    That particular comment isn’t specifically political.   Some people don’t like Warren Buffett’s politics, but his opinions are mentioned often.  And he’s often correct.  
    Sorry, but I disagree. It was clearly a partisan political comment. I've seen threads on this site closed for far less. And the question if it were Warren Buffet is meaningless. Warren Buffet is not a divisive political actor. Warren Buffet is not the top political person on talk shows and chat rooms the world over. Warren Buffet is not in a political spat with Congress. Warren Buffet is not a politician, Trump is. So yes that was a political comment and so out of place on these forums. And for the recoird let me add that I would have the same objection if they had said Obama, or Pelosi, or any other political person.
    Invoking the guy's name is not against the forum rules.
    That's why being a forum moderator is a thankless task. It often boils down to judgement calls. 
    Just know that, like referees and umpires, we do appreciate what you do even if we disagree with a call from time to time. 
  • Reply 29 of 30
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,818administrator
    DAalseth said:
    DAalseth said:
    DAalseth said:
    tbornot said:
    President Trump said the stock correction was a gift for those wanting to buy.  Correct again!
    I come here to get away from political BS.
    That particular comment isn’t specifically political.   Some people don’t like Warren Buffett’s politics, but his opinions are mentioned often.  And he’s often correct.  
    Sorry, but I disagree. It was clearly a partisan political comment. I've seen threads on this site closed for far less. And the question if it were Warren Buffet is meaningless. Warren Buffet is not a divisive political actor. Warren Buffet is not the top political person on talk shows and chat rooms the world over. Warren Buffet is not in a political spat with Congress. Warren Buffet is not a politician, Trump is. So yes that was a political comment and so out of place on these forums. And for the recoird let me add that I would have the same objection if they had said Obama, or Pelosi, or any other political person.
    Invoking the guy's name is not against the forum rules.
    That's why being a forum moderator is a thankless task. It often boils down to judgement calls. 
    Just know that, like referees and umpires, we do appreciate what you do even if we disagree with a call from time to time. 
    “Deckplate justice” takes care of minor stuff.
  • Reply 30 of 30
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,952member
    nht said:
    The trump reference had zero to do with AAPL's recovery and was political trolling.
    If a comment’s sole purpose is to show support for a politician, especially a highly polarizing one, it’s a political comment. “Nancy Pelosi is so smart—she’s the only one who can keep our economy from tanking” is a political comment. “Warren Buffett is so smart—he’s the only one who can keep our economy from tanking” is not. Each is about as relevant to this article as the comment in question here. 
    I guess I'd have to go back and read them, but I thought it was in reference to the trade deals with China and impact (for better or worse) that this might have on Apple. It is certainly political, but also absolutely relevant to the topic at hand.

    And... that's my point. One can't have such conversations w/o being political, as so many things involve politics. And, people are likely to disagree about their take on such things, which is also relevant. The problem comes in when people can't control their tempers and have a civil discussion, IMO. And that, I'd think, is what would/should get moderated. But, it's not my board.
    ronn
Sign In or Register to comment.