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 (23148)	8/6/2006 2:34:56 PM
From: Math Junkie	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 42834

Stockalot, writing in the third person for some reason, says: "Math is quite willing to speculate on Brinker's state of mind..." And yet Stockalot just got through asking me to speculate on Brinker's state of mind by asking me if he lied. "...(though gives others grief for doing so)..." I "give others grief" for presenting speculation as facts or proof. "...rather than go by exactly what Brinker said and admit that he was lying one time or the other." I "go by exactly what Brinker said" in the August newsletter. Stockalot chooses different statements to "go by exactly." That's what happens when Brinker makes conflicting statements. People can only speculate about which, if any, are true. There is no objective reason for saying that one speculation is better than another. It's all hunches and opinion. I admit that. Let's see if Stockalot can. "Now here we have a guy Math who had to hear Brinker claim just as I did that...3) He simply took the readings from the model and did not apply his 'feelings' to the process" It sounds like something Brinker could have said, but I never heard him say that. "Now after years of propaganda by Brinker that Math knows is factual that Brinker would go to 100% cash if the cumulative result of his model's calculations were bearish there are only two possibilies in January 2000. "1) Brinker is a liar 2) Brinker's model was not bearish." A third possibility is that he believed the statements when he made them. DUH! "It seems Math's desperate attempt to claim that Brinker's model was bearish but Brinker was not in early 2000 and that 8 months later Brinker accepted his model's take is made to reconcile totally conflicting statements." LOL! Stockalot asks me to speculate on why Brinker made conflicting statements, and then when I answer his questions, he calls me desperate! As I said to Yaetmo, it's just a hunch. Stockalot's guess is as good as mine, but when it comes to knowing what Brinker was thinking, that's all they are, guesses. "Math's tortured logic..." Pot, meet Kettle! "Now Math here your guy that you helped create an alibi to explain..." So now you're talking to me? OK. Why do you call it an alibi? Do you think Brinker's not trusting his own model is some kind of exoneration? "The market is still higher than it was when he sent that January 2000 call. Does he go to cash? "Nope." If my speculation is correct, then he still didn't fully trust his model in August, even though he had at least gotten to the point of being willing to admit that it was bullish. That is the explanation that seems the most plausible to me, but when it comes to speculations, yours is as good as mine. "So again was he lying when he said he would go to cash if his model ever became bearish or was he lying about the model being bearish??" I guess you think it's not possible that Brinker really believed he would go to 100% cash when he said it, and when the time came to do it, found out it was easier to talk about than to do. I guess you've never had the experience of finding that something you had planned on doing was not so easy when it came time to actually do it. Additionally, you apparently think the above is some kind of ringing endorsement, and that this makes Brinker "my guy" LOL. This is typical for you. You constantly portray your speculations as the only possible or plausible ones. You want people to BELIEVE they are the only possible or plausible ones. Why do you not see that Brinker could have changed his mind? Or do you think that changing one's mind is lying? "Additionally within two months this same guy you now claim you have to guess what his model is saying because he won't honestly tell you and lied to you about what he would do if it became bearish---sends that ACT IMMEDIATELY bulletin." I don't claim he was lying about what he would do if it became bearish. That's your claim. I do claim that "you have to guess what his model is saying," because he gave two different descriptions in print of what it was saying in January of 2000: the one he gave in January, and the one he gave in August. Do you disagree? "When you try to alibi for the guy he looks worse doesn't he? ::)" Which makes it all the more mysterious why you call it an alibi.