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: geode00 who wrote (16524)	8/18/2002 5:45:54 PM
From: Math Junkie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

The problem with your statements about the Brimelow article is that you keep reading things into it that aren't there, and then you call your own inferences factual inaccuracies and blame them on Brimelow. Here is a link to the text of the article for those who are trying to follow the discussion. #reply-17880565. (The original link has expired for non-subscribers of the original Web page.) "Brimelow said that Bob made some kind of commentary a la Russell about the QQQs." Brimelow cited Russell's "tradeable rally" as another example where a newsletter writer made statements about the direction of the market that were excluded from Hulbert's evaluation. That is an accurate statement. Anything more than that is just what YOU are reading into it. "How can that be construed as being sweet (that is, loving/liking them which is what sweet means) on them? Anyone who continues to hold onto a security through thick and thin, in spite of obvious evidence that it was a bad investment, is married to it, so "sweet on" them is not an inappropriate figure of speech. "If Brinker is "sweet" on the QQQs, what is he on GNMA's, in diabetic sugar shock?" I'm sure he's more sweet on them than he is on QQQ. Is everything black-and-white in your world? No shades of gray? Brimelow was factually inaccurate when he said that you should follow what Bob does and not what he says. Is he (and are you) saying that Bob tells his subscribers to do something and then he doesn't do it or does the opposite? That would make him lower than pond scum. Are you actually saying that?" No, you are. Again, you're reading things into the article that are not there. Brimelow's article refers to the model portfolios as what Brinker "does." In that sense, "do what he does, not what he says" is good advice, considering that the model portfolios have outperformed the S&P 500 by 30 percentage points or more since the beginning of 2000. Neither you, I, nor Brimelow know what Brinker actually does in his own account. "After all the arguments, after all this time you are now resorting to threatening posters you don't agree with?" Don't worry about me suing you - worry about Brinker. He's the one you accused of lying. "I think Brimelow is quite interested in Brinker and your lack of objectivity shows in your comments about him." You've spent so much time on the Brinker hate thread that you wouldn't recognize objectivity if you tried. "This is his second article in less than one year. I think he could make Brinker into a cottage industry and he should write a book about it." Let me get this straight: You write about Brinker every day, and then claim that two articles in one year is reason to question Brimelow's objectivity?