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: fahrenheit451 who wrote (22730)	7/29/2006 11:22:55 AM
From: Kirk ©	Respond to of 42834

Thanks for finding that. He's sure been whining about me for a long time. How is your recent CACS buy at $7.03 doing? CACS closed Friday at $7.50. I've made a lot of money on the stock too. The recent decline under $5 was a real gift where I was able to load up on shares again. I sold some of those in the mid $8's in the Spring and repurchased some just weeks ago at $7.09. You've either banned them, or they have left in disgust. He's "mistaken" yet again. "They" left in disgrace but my guess is "they" were the same person who's been giving SI-Dave such problems making multiple accounts to harass Brinker's critics and lie about their success following the man. David Hinkley was nothing compared to this guy!

To: fahrenheit451 who wrote (22730)	7/29/2006 7:55:04 PM
From: dijaexyahoo	Respond to of 42834

fahrenheit quoted me as saying in 2004 on the UTEK board: <<You (kirk) posted that piece of garbage in response to allancoleman, and there is no one there like me, La_la, snow chief, farenheit, catbird, mark j., libertypilgrim, walkerman, etc. to tear it to shreds. You've either banned them, or they have left in disgust. How is your recent CACS buy at $7.03 doing?>> --Thanks for correcting me, although I wasn't that far off, as I said kirk bought it around $7.90. I think you and I proved my point, which was that kirk mentioned buying a lot of CACS at $5-something on the way down, but neglected to mention he had bought some at $7.03 on the way down. How is THAT any different from brinker's almost identical spin story about some tech stock (stamford telecom, I think) that stockalot likes to keep reminding us about? Almost everything the bashers have ever accused brinker of doing, they do themselves. fahrenheit added: <<I still can't see how attacking Kirk will help Bob Brinker one bit.>> --That is because you are not objective and open-minded. Second, I don't attack kirk, and neither do queen and math. We simply try to point it out when we catch him lying, spinning and using other forms of propaganda in his anti-brinker crusade. Why is this pertinent to the brinker discussion? Because kirk controls 4 (FOUR--COUNT 'EM, FOUR) anti-brinker propaganda boards. Kirk is brinker's most powerful enemy. He influences an unknown number of innocent people who are simply looking for information on Bob Brinker, and, IMO, he brainwashes these people against bob with propaganda. It is impossible to discuss brinker without also discussing his #1 enemy. If his enemy is using unfair tactics against him, we are obligated to discuss the enemy. One recent example of kirk's propaganda is his response to my statement that you quoted above: <<You (kirk) posted that piece of garbage in response to allancoleman, and there is no one there like me, La_la, snow chief, farenheit, catbird, mark j., libertypilgrim, walkerman, etc. to tear it to shreds. You've either banned them, or they have left in disgust.>> Kirk, in another post, said those people "left in disgrace." This was a BLATANT LIE. I happen to KNOW FOR AN ABSOLUTE FACT that all but one were asked to leave, summarily booted, or left in disgust. The only one I don't know about for sure is catbird, but he certainly didn't leave in disgrace. He debated circles around those bashers. In any brinker discussion, it's important to know his #1 basher does stuff like that.

To: fahrenheit451 who wrote (22730)	7/29/2006 11:49:40 PM
From: Kirk ©	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42834

Zero Credibility List: shres and dijaexyahoo Those two people have lied about me yesterday and today. I say lie because when I ponited out their errors, rather than say "Sorry, I made a mistake" they tried to spin it into a new tale. I try to not honor people like that with personal replies other than to further show their lack of credibility. The Zero Credibility dija character tried to imply that I lost money on CACS or did poorly in it just like Brinker did with QQQQ. This can not be further from the truth if you tried. If were to liquidate my current PERSONAL CACS holdings at the current price of $7.50, then I'd walk away with a REAL MONEY PROFIT of $69,250 after commissions. I buy and sell shares many times. The purchase at $7.03 was only for 200 shares... If I were to liquidate my current NEWSLETTER CACS holdings at the current price of $7.50, then I'd walk away with a PAPER PROFIT of $28,650 after commissions. Unless mathjunkie says Bob Brinker has some new math laws, I believe Bob Brinker's recommendation to buy QQQQ with up to a third of your total investment portfolio is still down over 50%... and it doesn't matter if it is real money or paper profits. I made real and paper profits. Brinker lost a bundle. The dija character was "lying" yet again when he said I was just like Brinker with my CACS. It is amazing that anyone will engage him in a debate when he pulls the lying tricks out of his hat just like a dirty boxer throws the low blows to try and save a fight. Thanks again for your help in setting the record straight.