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: Jeffrey D who wrote (19469)	10/3/2003 1:41:37 PM
From: lizardK	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

Just an FYI Jeff ---- The person that you are addressing in your recent post (Truman) passed away a few yrs ago....

To: Jeffrey D who wrote (19469)	10/6/2003 1:00:08 PM
From: Tim Bagwell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42834

JD, You don't seriously think that you're expressing new ideas do you? Your pro-Brinker comments have been tried here before and they just don't add up. That's why there aren't many supporters left here. You really need to take a step back and be objective in your reasoning. Only then can you see past the false image that Brinker generates to fool the unwitting. Then you will see Brinker for what he really is...a rank amateur market timer with some good basic investment advice but who, at best, is a simple radio talk show entertainer. Many of us on this thread used to be Brinker fans. But that all changed when the facts were all put on the table to study. It's true that the QQQ debacle was probably the turning point for me but only because it punctured the cloak of deceit that Brinker hides behind.

To: Jeffrey D who wrote (19469)	10/6/2003 3:16:14 PM
From: sea_biscuit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

Jeffrey: Since you mentioned my name... I must say that I am now more positive of Brinker than before. I was hoping that he would not let the QQQ fiasco cloud his mind, and it looks like he has focused on the here and now, and gotten people to participate in this significant cyclical bull-market. He deserves all credit for that. I know that there are some numbers which say that if one includes QQQ, TEFQX and all other Brinker moves regardless of whether they generated gains or losses, the advantage over a buy-and-hold approach is fairly small. But I think going forward, Brinker will do quite well for his subscribers. The secular bear is by no means over. It may be another 10 years or more before a sustainable bull can begin. And I think Brinker's advice over those years will eventually establish a good lead over the robotic buy-and-hold strategy.

To: Jeffrey D who wrote (19469)	10/7/2003 11:25:56 AM
From: stockalot	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42834

I've lurked here for quite a while. I am amazed at the lengths Jeffrey D will go to to rewrite the sorry history here. Jeffrey knows very well the history of this thread, he has been here for most of it's existance. I was particularly struck by this post of his to the late founder of the thread. It appears to me to be his lame attempt to make current complaints about Bob Brinker less accurate or less damning than the complaints in the early days of his internet history. <<Truman, it is sad to see how this once mighty thread you started has degenerated to such a sorry state. Do you remember how the the Brinker bashers in the past used to engage the Brinker supporters in thoughtful and, yes, emotional debate. Who can forget the great exchanges between Rillinois and Justawerkinstiff? Dipy and Skeeter Bug also provided thoughtful posts as Brinker bashers. One thing all of the bashers of the past had in common was that they had a genuine and honest disagreement with Brinker's thoughts and ideas. No hidden agendas. >> What is most telling about your post Jeffrey D is who you left out. You well know that the "great" exchanges" were not between Justa and Rill, but rather between Don Lane and Rillinois. The guy who pounded on Dipy endlessly also was Don Lane. The reason? Dipy read the newsletter in a library. Now why on the thread where this took place would you want to rewrite the history? Why do you wish to hide the most famous poster ever on this thread, Don Lane? Would there indeed be a "transparent " agenda in your omission?