Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Boca_PETE who wrote (13665)	4/12/2001 1:44:33 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

>>which neither confirms nor denies that you were the source that sparked Kangus's UTEK-conflict of interest question<< pete, imho, you are reaching. it was CLEARLY not kirk's intent to "spark" a UTEK question. there is no reasonable and rational doubt of that. only unreasonable and irrational doubt. to BLAME kirk, or hold him ACCOUNTABLE in any way is a joke. if this isn't self evident by now, nothing i say can help. >>This personal attack reflects your true character perfectly.<< >>But as for credibility, in my book yours has been right down there with your idol, Clinton for most of the time I've been posting SI<< pete, you just said kirk had poor character for equating you to clinton and then you equate kirk to clinton - IN THE SAME POST. simple logic dictates that you MUST also have the same poor character for your personal attack that you attribute to kirk for his personal attack. come on, you were WRONG to indict kirk for utek. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. period. take some responsibility for being WRONG. just b/c bob ducks and dodges responsibility for his HORRID calls doesn't give you license to enter the illogical and irrational to avoid personal accountability.

To: Boca_PETE who wrote (13665)	4/12/2001 2:06:21 PM
From: Kirk ©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

Pete. Stop your crying. YOU were the one that slandered me on a private web site and I want to correct YOUR misrepresentation of the truth AND I want a retraction. Instead of providing a direct response to my specific comments, you provide the Clinton-Like indirect response ... I INITIATED the discussion and TOLD you I did not send a note to Kangas about UTEK. Had you forgotten that? YOU said you remember the question coming right after my name and I provided a transcript to prove you were wrong. Here is a link to my post: Message 15651386 Can you read the first sentence? I will repeat the first part again for you: Pete... I didn't ask Brinker about UTEK... Go read the transcript. I actually posted my MSFT question on my web site and suggested others send in their questions. Is THAT too hard to understand? Tell me how to make it more direct and I will tell you again I did not send a note to Kangas about Brinker. (I think I know two people who did... but that is another issue.) BTW, I am on loan from God to save the World from people like YOU that try to keep others from sharing the truth about people like Brinker. I am sure she is pleased with my work too. 8) Care to take a vote on who lost or gained more credibility today? Kirk out