Justa Werkenstiff, I apologize that my response to you has taken so long. I have to admit that I am perplexed by your different posts. When I initially read your first response (#3806) to my New Asia post (#3763), I thought you had understood what I was contending about Brinker. Let me first reiterate the contention I made on March 4, 1998 (post #3763, paragraphs 2-3):
"If you listen to Brinker, lately, he makes it sound like he had the astuteness to side-step the Asian meltdown. He pats himself on the back constantly for issuing a sell on New Asia before the meltdown.
The following are posts that I made on Brinkers' AOL board along with Bob's responses. I believe I have concrete evidence to show that Bob has not only used his spinning techniques to make himself look like a market timing guru, but he has flat out lied to me and to everybody that listens to him."
Next, here are the words you used on March 5, 1998 (post #3806) that led me to believe that you understood my contention:
"...On the other hand, Brinker sure does leave the IMPRESSION with me (perhaps unintentionally) on the radio that there could be something more to his New Asia call than mere underperformance. Although I like both the Bob on the radio and the Bob in Rochester (extremely nice and warm guy), I like the Rochester Bob much better. He does not have to leave that IMPRESSION with me to be a winner in my book. I imagine most people would agree with me on this point."
To my dismay, on March 6, (#3825 paragraph #2) you declared your strong disagreement with my contention. You also went on to challenge the accuracy of Brinker's quoted response to my question. You said,
"BTW, I strongly disagree with this statement. I do not think Brinker is a liar at all. Specifically, his post response to you, if accurately quoted, is not a lie:"
First, let's review the accuracy of the quotes. Here is my original question to Brinker (#3763 paragraph #10):
"You said "Marketimer subscribers sold their entire ten percent position in New Asia on July 11 based on concerns expressed in the newsletter regarding Asia performance."
Were the concerns expressed in the newsletter a result of the poor underperformance of the fund since 1994 or was it foresight into the future meltdown of the region?"
Next Brinker's response (paragraph #14):
"New Asia was eliminated from all Model Portfolios and the Recommended List effective July 11, 1997 at a price of $9.15 per share due to concerns about performance prospects in the Asian Theatre.
We reinvested the monies in international growth. We did not reinvest the monies in another Asian fund because we were not bullish on the Asian outlook. Since July 11, New Asia fund has declined 38% through December 29 inclusive. So far, it appears the decision to pull out of New Asia is a good one!"
[If anybody finds it necessary to verify the accuracy of this quote for themselves it's on Brinker's board on AOL.]
Justa, I stand behind it's accuracy and I think you made a weak attempt to try and discredit me by insinuating that the accuracy of the quote might be in question. Let me know if you acknowledge the accuracy of the quote now, "maybe it was a poor choice of words".
Now back to your strong disagreement with my contention. You went on to give your SPIN on what "lagging performance" could have meant and then warned me that I "better be careful about calling someone a liar based upon that kind of weak argument." (post #3825 paragraph #5) The very next sentence you said, "I think, however, as I have stated before that Brinker does leave the IMPRESSION on the air usually through omission that his New Asia deletion was something more. I think you are mixing his on air statements and omissions with his written words in coming to your conclusion. But he is in no way lying."
Well, like I said when I started this post I was perplexed. I went to the dictionary and looked up the verb "to lie" (I guess this is really a gerund, right? <g>) And this is what I found...
1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
2. To convey a false image or IMPRESSION.
Justa, you, yourself, have mentioned THREE times that you have had Brinker leave the false IMPRESSION on you that there was more to the sale of NEW ASIA than mere underperformance.
1)"Brinker sure does leave the IMPRESSION with me (perhaps unintentionally) on the radio that there could be something more to his New Asia call than mere underperformance."
2)"He does not have to leave that IMPRESSION with me to be a winner in my book."
3)"I think, however, as I have stated before that Brinker does leave the IMPRESSION on the air usually through omission that his New Asia deletion was something more."
Justa, without even knowing it, you justified my contention that Brinker has lied, or conveyed a false image or IMPRESSION, in regards to this specific issue. The only thing open to debate is whether or not he "presented false information with the intention of deceiving". That is a matter of opinion. My opinion is he definitely wanted "to convey a false image or IMPRESSION" in an effort to look like a market timing guru.
So in response to the question you posed to me in your March 7th post (#3851 paragraph #3, 2nd to last sentence):
"I would like to know if you really believe Brinker is a "liar" or whether this was a slip of the tongue personal attack that you regret in making your arguments? Your credibility is at stake here without a doubt."
I would like to directly and unambiguously answer you by saying, YES, I really believe Brinker is a "liar" when it comes to the answer he gave me when I asked him plain and simple, "Were the concerns expressed in the newsletter a result of the poor underperformance of the fund since 1994 or was it foresight into the future meltdown of the region?" Brinker not only "conveyed a false image or IMPRESSION" to me, but apparently to you, as well. And it was NOT a slip of the tongue personal attack that I regret in making my argument. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, I believe my credibility is in tact without a doubt, no thanks to your WEAK attempts to show the contrary.
In response to another statement you made:
"If someone comes on this board and calls Brinker, in effect, "a liar", he is in stating that Brinker should not be allowed on the radio. You might as well say that he is guilty of a crime (some SEC statute) and should be hauled off to jail like Sonny Bloch." (post #3851, paragraph #3, 2nd sentence)
Justa, I believe these are your words and NOT mine. I've NEVER contended that Brinker should not be allowed on the radio. I don't believe that being a SPIN DOCTOR is a crime (BTW, I believe the FCC is the regulatory agency that regulates the radio waves, not the SEC.) And I think Brinker is a SPIN DOCTOR,... a good SPIN DOCTOR.
Best Regards.
Rillinois |
