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: stockalot who wrote (22864)	8/1/2006 2:02:44 PM
From: queenleah	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

stockalot said Thus "shill" would not be appropriate. The term "shill" or "Brinkershill" is and always has been inappropriate and inaccurate when applied to those who receive no remuneration or reward of any kind for their opinions and information posted on a message board. Some would submit that the term "liar", although harsh, might be more accurately applied to someone who keeps repeating terms and claims that are unsupported and unsupportable.

To: stockalot who wrote (22864)	8/1/2006 7:45:00 PM
From: dijaexyahoo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

stockalot said: stockalot said: <<...because I did not believe him when he claimed that Brinker's portfolios outperformed using the Wilshire 5000 when Brinker's timing moves were applied to both.>> --OK. I'm am going to try to explain this to you one more time, although I'm sure you won't understand because you do not WANT to understand. First, do you have the July newsletter? You have never answered this simple question,but I have to assume you have access to it since you have quoted from it when it suited your purposes. I called you a liar because I believed you had the newsletter, or had access to it, or had a friend you could contact who could verify what I said. If you do have access to the newsletter, then you were lying when you said, or intimated that, brinker's portfolios did not outperform the indexes over the past 5 years. <<Nevertheless we do have it on record that indeed according to Hulbert when you examine Brinker's "long term record" (that he is current bragging about with no clarification in his newsletter), using the Wilshire 5000 applied to Brinker's timing calls gives you substantially better results than using BRinker's fund picks.>> --Over the last 5 years, that is not true. All I have ever said on this thread is that Bob's P1 and P2 both beat the indexes over the past 5 years. You have spun and twisted and used every trick in the book to try to deny that, and to make others believe it is not true. <<This is very important and Dija should know it and not call someone a liar for pointing it out.>> --I did NOT call you a liar for pointing out Hulbert's report covering 1987-2005. I simply told you that you had drifted off the subject (on purpose, obviously). I also told you that virtually no one (actually NO ONE with a diversified portfolio) beat the indexes in any time period that included the 1990s, because mega-big-cap stocks ruled. Of course, you KNOW that is true, so you ignored me and did not respond, but just twisted everything I had said in #22846 out of shape. I don't really blame you for doing that. It was your only option because you had been checkmated and beaten!