kirk said:
<<Your post is completely and totally absurd, as usual. Now we're even.>>
--Well, that's a typical response by you. You didn't tell us what it was about my post that was absurd. You just made a statement that it was absurd. You won't win many debates that way.
<<It boggles the mind that the more evidence we bring up to post what we know for a fact is true, the more you spin, insult us and deny.>>
--What evidence did you bring up? On the post of yours that I called absurd, you simply stated that many retirees put 100% in cash, and then put 20% into the QQQs. There was NO EVIDENCE CITED.
<<It boggles the mind that you actually think you are objective.>>
--What REALLY boggles the mind is that you could say I'm not objective here, and THEN write post 22555, which PROVES I'm objective!
<<BTW, I told others (via email) I was too busy to look up the Hulbert info that showed what Brinker was talking about. I posted it as soon as I found it.>>
--OK. I'll accept that. What is honey gibbering about when she says it is a lie (that brinker was rated #1 for long-term market timing)?
<< It boggles the mind that you continue to attack me despite my objective behavior.>>
--I only attack you because you're NOT objective, and I have, in each case, pointed out exactly what you said that was not objective, so others could decide for themselves. You have never said what *I* said that was not objective.
I know I'm frustrating to you, because I put a spotlight on your propaganda. THIS IS THE REAL REASON I WAS ASKED TO LEAVE YOUR BOARD!
<<But your BS and attacks are RED HERRINGs!>>
--What, pray tell, did I post that could be classified as a red herring? I don't expect you to answer.
<<Performance ranking data Bob Brinker ORIGINALLY posted on his web site and in the recent newsletters IS NOT TRUE!
It never was true, as far as I can tell.>>
--What did he say in the newsletter that was not true? If he was not the #1 long-term market timer over the last 15 years, who was? I don't expect an answer to this either (You guys NEVER answer the questions that will weaken your case; whereas I answer those kinds of questions all the time) (see post 22555). So do math and queen. On the basher side, only pig answers those kinds of questions.
<<...because (brinker) has many issues with false information on them.>>
--He does? Proof? Evidence? Examples? I don't expect an answer.
<< I may make you one of the few I have on ignore here when I tire of your nonsense.>>
--It might be best for your blood pressure if you DO put me on ignore, ASAP.
<<BTW, I did a search of your email address on Google and found people on the old usenet misc.investing.* were calling you names for trying to defend Brinker before you started acting up on Suite101. Should I post some links or will you admit here this is a fact?>>
--I don't recall that. I DO recall telling a lot of those raging bulls that there was a bear market coming, and they were going to be chewed up and spit out. In 1998 or 99, one guy actually wrote that he had sold a tech fund because it was ONLY up 100% for the year, and he thought he could do better elsewhere.
That was the kind of greed that caused people pain in the bear market. It wasn't brinker who caused it--it was greed!
Anyway, post all the links you want. I have nothing to hide.
But thanks for asking me first. |
