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 (16688)	9/2/2002 11:12:26 PM
From: geode00	Respond to of 42834

Richard, he went out of his way to write about the reaction Brinker gets from his listening/subscribing public. He doesn't blame Brinker, he blames the public: "So why do clouds of vengeful investors buzz around his noble head?" Noble, he has got to be kidding but I don't think he is. Vengeful, as in unfairly? Buzzing, as in flies? "Why is Brinker doing this? It sounds odd, but it's not unprecedented. It's genuinely hard for advisers to compress all their intuitions into a model portfolio system" Intuitions, that comment is simply an excuse for Brinker. What in the world is this guy talking about? It was a very special, unprecedented mailing with advice that was repeated in the Marketimer for months. "But many subscribers obviously read Brinker's commentary, which is less precise (probably unfortunately)." Commentary? It was a very specific recommendation, repeated repeatedly thereafter that exactly matched the percentages found in the model portfolios. This is the bs that leads me to the correct conclusion that Brimelow is giving Brinker a pass. That was article number 2 on the fiasco. Article number 3 was an improvement (as 2 was over 1 which was ridiculous and edited after it was released which is complete bs) but Brimelow still has a ways to go to get it right. Note that Brimelow is starting to get the idea with each progressive article. Good for him, at least, that he's not heading in the opposite direction. cbs.marketwatch.com

To: Math Junkie who wrote (16688)	9/2/2002 11:21:05 PM
From: geode00	Respond to of 42834

I try to read what he wrote without adding to or subtracting anything from it. That is the only way I have any hope of finding out what he meant without contaminating it with my previously held point of view. Well, I'm glad that you enjoy reading in a vacuum. I, however, draw from what I know to provide context to the things I read. As for contamination, I was shocked (shocked I tell you!) to read Brimelow's original Forbes article. I was shocked that he was writing an article for a major financial publication but had most of the facts (even the minute ones) totally wrong. I was further shocked (shocked I tell you!) when his funny comments about the guys in dark glasses was deleted at some later point. First ammendment? Freedom of the press? Accuracy of the press? Harumph. Very disappointing.