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 (16564)	8/21/2002 10:48:45 AM
From: Cautious_Optimist	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

The QQQ play had me in a state of suspended disbelief for many months, as I optimistically waited for that countertrend rally. Other than some base-hits from shorts, I am still trying to profit from the lessons of 2000-2001-2002. Let me know if you have figured it out. Also, the fact that so many insiders and BRAND NAME stock pump-and-dumpers such as those at Merrill Lynch were cashing out at much greater prices while I helped prop up the prices with my Q's and sub-index performing mutual funds makes me question the very foundations of the game for us suckers on Main Street who have to play with our hands and cards above the table.

To: geode00 who wrote (16564)	8/21/2002 11:42:01 AM
From: Math Junkie	Read Replies (1) \| 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." If Brimelow has been reading this, I am sure he feels the same way about the way you have been misinterpreting his article. "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 think you could be right about his liking it when people exaggerate his successes, but it is also true that I have heard him correct people when they misstate his actions in January of 2000. "I find it unbelievable that anyone wants to give Brinker a pass on burying parts of his advice while touting the rest." So do I. I don't like his unwillingness to discuss QQQ any more than you do, but I don't think that justifies twisting the truth to try to make his successes look like failures. "The best thing is to look at everything as clearly as possible and not give him the benefit of any doubt." The above states your bias very well. "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?" I'll discuss my motivations below, but if you compare the number of favorable Internet postings about Brinker now to what it was before QQQ went south, the difference is huge, so it's really not true that he hasn't taken any real hits. And if you would allow yourself to read what Brimelow wrote without reading things into it, you might see that it is a hit to Brinker's reputation as well. His article is a much more effective hit against Brinker's reputation than everything you have ever written, because he lacks your obvious bias against Brinker. "Don't you care about accuracy and the truth?" I do care about accuracy and truth. That's why I challenge you when you try to distort it. I agree with some of your criticisms of Brinker, but I think your twisting of the truth and exaggeration of his faults damages your credibility.