"You know very well that the bots views (along with Brinkers duck and cover shennanigans) are skewed."
Why, because they disagree with you?
You're trying to smear Brinker's fans by lumping them in together with Brinker's inept PR efforts. Nice try, but no cigar. I don't know of anyone who thinks that Brinker handles criticism well.
"The critics views are based on facts."
Then why is it that, when they sum up Brinker's work, they so often leave out important facts that do not fit their picture of him? For example:
"That doesn't excuse Bob's mistakes. Just because there are more rotten apples in the basket doesn't make this particular wormy one any more palatable. In fact, he should be thrown out with the rest of them.
"The critics have been right about the QQQs all along. Exactly how many sides of the story are there? The QQQ's advised for a short term trade for a 20% gain are now down 60%. What exactly is the other side of the story?"
Message 15635121
Then when I point out what the other side of the story is, you tell me, "all the critics I've seen give Brinker 100% credit where credit is due," ignoring the fact that you just got through summing up his work without mentioning even one success. The only time you mention anything he has done that has benefited his subscribers is when you are forced into it.
"Also for the upteenth time, how in the heck do you think the critics became subscribers who were then around for Brinker to kick in the first place?"
In your case, I think it was because you were looking for someone who is infallible.
"Stop distorting things, your bias is showing."
Why, just because I disagree with you? Bias is when you include only facts that support one point of view, and leave out everything else. When I sum up Brinker's work, I include both the good and the bad. For example, when sayrep recently asked me about Brinker's record at calling bear-market bottoms, I told him that as far as I knew, the last time he had done so was 1982, I acknowledged that he was underinvested from 1988 through 1990, and I discussed the limitations of back-testing a model:
Message 15635140
If I were biased, then when called upon to discuss Brinker's long term record, I would have avoided discussing 1987-90 altogether, I would have characterized October 1998 as calling the bottom instead of just holding through a correction, I would have talked about backtesting without mentioning its limitations, and I would not have admitted any doubt as to the outcome of Brinker's eventual return to a fully-invested position. All of these things have been done on these discussion boards, but I try to avoid them. If you find evidence of bias in my posts, please point it out, because I believe that bias ultimately works to the detriment of our own portfolios. But an unsupported opinion that I am biased is not very helpful.
By the way, why do you write about "bots" and "critics"? It should be either "bots and bashers" or "fans and critics." If you want to be seen as unbiased, then you should stop using derogatory terms for only one side of the argument.
(Now I bet you're going to tell me that "bot" is not a derogatory term. Am I right?) |
