SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Bob Brinker: Market Savant & Radio Host
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: geode00 who wrote (16526)8/19/2002 3:31:55 AM
From: Math Junkie  Read Replies (1) of 42834
 
"You are spinning as fast and as furiously as Bob."

Every time I ask myself "am I spinning," I go back and reread the article, and every time I come to the inevitable conclusion that no, it is you who are spinning.

"It is laughable that you think Bob has held onto the QQQs through a near 75% decline because he likes them."

So you're saying he held onto them because he thought they were a bad investment?

I don't know how Brinker feels about QQQ, and neither do you. "Sweet on QQQ" was a figure of speech, and as such it is an exaggeration for you to call that a "factual inaccuracy" when it is obvious to anyone who doesn't have an axe to grind that Brimelow was merely referring to the fact that Brinker still recommends holding them.

Sometimes I get the impression that you deliberately misinterpret people just to give yourself something to be indignant about.

I have no problem with your saying that Brimelow should have addressed the BJ Group in his article. What I have a problem with is your carelessness with the truth, as evidenced by your pretending that he did address it, and then counting it as a factual inaccuracy as a result.

I warned you about the possibility of being called upon to defend your words in court because in the post I was replying to, you accused Brinker of lying without presenting any evidence. That struck me as living dangerously. I note that you have now changed it from an outright accusation of lying to "lying by omission," so maybe my warning did some good.

I figure if I have done anything to cause you to be a little less careless in your attempts to damage the reputation of a fellow human being, that is a good thing.

"He is a liar by omission by allowing false and favorable statements about his advice to stand time and again on national radio when he has every opportunity to set the record straight."

I have heard Brinker set the record straight many times. Do you even listen to his radio program any more?

"I believe he is a liar by omission when he said that he would sidestep a bear. He never sidestepped it as he remained in equities and even increased (and stayed with) his equity holdings."

Ridiculous. That is equivalent to saying that no one should ever change their mind, because if they do, then they can be accused of lying. Don't you ever think these things through before you write them?

"Why do you let him get away with this bs? Don't you believe in the truth? I do.

Then why do you work so hard at distorting the truth?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News