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: Math Junkie who wrote (16552)	8/21/2002 1:59:41 AM
From: Tim Bagwell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42834

>>>He has admitted that he was wrong about QQQ MANY TIMES<<< Richard, he actually has claimed that "we" were wrong. No one knows who "we" are. Is it intended to include those who were snookered in on the trade? If so, "we" would like to know. I was reminded tonight that people tend to use the syntactical "we" when they really mean "I" as an unconscious way to try to divert blame and obscure the truth. Another tactic is to keep tight lipped hoping that the publics attention span will be short enough that it will be forgotten and maybe go away. Yet another tactic is to squelch discussions that take you into areas that could allow an inference to the problem area (such as "no more opinions on short term moves"). And yet another tactic is to make style changes that shift the focus to areas of your perceived strength. At the very least, there is a troubling pattern that has developed in the post QQQ Brinker. It could all be explained away to the satisfaction of a reasonable and fair-minded person. But the silent treatment doesn't do that.

To: Math Junkie who wrote (16552)	8/21/2002 2:55:00 AM
From: geode00	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42834

Geez Richard, no matter how clearly I make my points you are simply going to misinterpret them in order to make Bob look better than he actually is. I stand by my comments regarding factual inaccuracies in Brimelow's articles and also by my comments about Brinker's lying (whether through omission or whatever lying is still lying IMO). I absolutely disagree with you when you say he has admitted his QQQ mistakes and his failure to go to cash in 2000. That is bogus. Only those who know the details of his foibles understand what he's saying. Other people clearly interpret his position as having sold out at the top of the market. He also clearly likes it that way and does not dispel that myth on his show. I find it unbelievable that anyone wants to give Brinker a pass on burying parts of his advice while touting the rest. The best thing is to look at everything as clearly as possible and not give him the benefit of any doubt. He's done enough damage so far (geez, he's down 74% on 32.5% of a portfolio yet takes no real hits for it), why do you want to encourage him to do more of the same in the future? Don't you care about accuracy and the truth?