> That's an easy claim to make when you simply dismiss anyone who succeeds as random chance. I never said this anywhere. You're confusing the practice of scien

> That's an easy claim to make when you simply dismiss anyone who succeeds as random chance. I never said this anywhere. You're confusing the practice of science with a blanket statement I never made. Pretend to be a scientist -- prove me wrong. Locate where I said what you claim I said. > Yes there is, however I don't believe it's been adequately proven to be impossible. Oh, great -- "proven to be impossible". Before you go on, learn about the impossibility of proving a negative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot Quote: "Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others ..." Remember -- all I have ever said is that the possibility of a chance outcome cannot, must not, be dismissed, and to a scientist, it is the first possibility to be considered, not the last. > That's not damning evidence, merely circumstantial. What? According to the scientific rules of evidence, the burden of evidence is not mine to prove that a winning stock picking strategy does not exist (i.e. prove a negative), the burden is on others to prove that it does.