honeybeerose said:
<<Wait a minute. You asked me for the links to that site...nothing more. Now you whine that I didn't answer questions that I don't even know the answers to?????>>
--Well, actually, I asked kirk. Here is what I asked him:
<<Kirk, would you please post a link, or the info on how to get to your facebook site? I would like to go there and see your year-by-year results.>>
--You then graciously answered for him, by posting 3 links, which led me to believe that you knew that the requested information WAS there.
That was no doubt my mistake. I should not have assumed that you knew the info was there.
BTW, in searching for my original question, I found this other post by kirk and my follow-up question, which neither kirk nor anyone else answered.
It's really interesting how many questions to "detractors" are NEVER answered. If someone were to spend some time reading old posts, I bet he/she would just be AMAZED at the number of legitimate questions the "detractors" never do answer, because it would "detract" from their anti-brinker agendas:
kirk:
<<I doubt very few of his current subscribers are aware he had a newsletter portfolio in 1986 and 1987 since he doesn't show the returns for those years. Actually, I don't think he shows his returns by year anywhere. What's up with that? Probably because he under performed the Wilshire5000 according to Mark Hulbert.>>
Yours truly, octavian, replied:
--I thought, according to you "detractors," that he did poorly in 1988 and 1989 and, as I recall, 1990. I wonder why he didn't start his tracking in 1991? |
