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: Kirk © who wrote (22722)	7/29/2006 10:20:52 AM
From: shres	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

"I doubt what is said in a pxxxing fight matters to SI Dave." Do you allow that kind of talk at 101 Kirk? And your rambling posts about male/female computer guessing games is boring at best and irrelevant.

To: Kirk © who wrote (22722)	7/29/2006 10:27:13 AM
From: queenleah	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42834

kirk said "Queen-like mistakes" such as not knowing how much it costs to live in the better parts of CA so his retirement income could not pay for a retirement. "Queen-like"? How could that be a "queen-like" mistake?Now for what earthly reason would queen be in there? I definitely would not know what it costs to live in CA because I've never lived there and wouldn't want to, and never claimed to. And I've never constructed any fantasy stories on 101. I submit that your post amounts to goading and subtle accusations for no reason other than animosity to Brinker and another poster who never had any part of the fantasy scenario you describe. I'd submit that if you want the discussion on this thread to be more rational and more worth the while as well it takes to read your fantasies as well as more on the topic of this thread, Brinker's Marketimer, that you think again about throwing gratuitous digs in just for the fun of it, such as that one and your final paragraph.

To: Kirk © who wrote (22722)	7/29/2006 9:11:42 PM
From: Math Junkie	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42834

"The same person, or at least evidence strongly suggests, loved to construct fantasy personas on Suite101 to lie about his success following Brinker." All the evidence I've seen in Queen's case consists of the fact that Stockalot's beliefs about her are consistent with his beliefs about her, i.e., an elaborate, self-consistent theory. None of the parts of the theory that matter are verifiable, and I think it's wrong to expect people to reveal enough personal information about themselves on the Net to disprove such theories. The fact that you know of someone who admitted to lying about their personal circumstances is irrelevant. We all know that kind of thing happens. That doesn't prove that any specific person is doing it. Even if it were somehow proven that Queen were lying about herself, that wouldn't mean that she was the same person as the one you're talking about, unless you believe there is only one such person on the Net. "He kept making 'Queen-like mistakes'" As you know, there has been a lot of speculation about which IDs on Yahoo belong to you. Much of it relies on observations like that, and I'm sure you know that many times they are wrong in IDing you. "BTW, are you aware that in the last 10 years or so there are all sorts of computer games that let people take on different personalities?" And because it's possible, that proves that it's true of any given individual that Stockalot takes a disliking to? Sorry, I don't buy it. I believe that we shouldn't get too wrapped up in trying to figure out what's true and what isn't about what people say about themselves. All we're doing here is exchanging opinions, and if it's that important to know a person's personal circumstances, then we're taking this all too seriously in the first place. People should be basing their investment decisions on verifiable facts, not on what people say about themselves personally, which is unverifiable for at least 99.9% of the posters on the Internet.