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: Honey_Bee who wrote (23672)	8/15/2006 4:20:00 PM
From: Math Junkie	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 42834

"A verbatim transcript:" Not quite. He said "rationale," not "rational."

To: Honey_Bee who wrote (23672)	8/15/2006 4:45:03 PM
From: stockalot	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

This is what it's all about--dishonesty. Obviously Math couldn't argue with the subtance of Honey's response to Dija, so he nitpicked. This is what happens to all of those who take up Bob Brinker's crooked cross and try to straighten it. They end up attacking those pointing out how crooked he is and nitpicking. Dija falsely accused me of saying something about Bob Brinker that is not true. Here is proof that what I said in true. A verbatim transcript: Bob Brinker's "Moneytalk" July, 16, 2006: . Caller: "And just one last question. As far as people who have held on to Q’s for about five years, is there a possibility of a sell signal for that at sometime?" Bob Brinker: "Well we did reduce our exposure to the Nasdaq 100 in the newsletter. We did it in the April edition. We did a very substantial reduction to our Nasdaq 100 holdings in the April edition. The effective date was April 11th. The closing price on the Q’s on that date was right around $42 a share." Caller: "Well, okay and…" Bob Brinker: "The reason we did it at that time, is because we thought it from a timing standpoint it was a good opportunity to do it. So that was the rational behind the reduction that was made in the newsletter in the April edition. Thanks for the call. 1-800-xxx-xxxx. Jim’s with us in Washington...." .

To: Honey_Bee who wrote (23672)	8/15/2006 8:06:32 PM
From: dijaexyahoo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

honey said: <<Dija falsely accused me of saying something about Bob Brinker that is not true. Here is proof that what I said in true. A verbatim transcript...>> --Honey, what I said was 100% true. Here is what you said and what I said: <<2) Drop all Marketimer coverage of the trades and issue a new Nasdaq-100 Index buy in the mid-$20 range and refuse to ever mention the previous trades again. And if questioned, pretend the 2000/2001 events never happened.>> --Honey, if you were an objective person, instead of a lady on a mission, here's how you would have worded the above paragraph: 2) Drop all Marketimer coverage of the trades and, later, issue a new Nasdaq-100 Index buy in the mid-$20 range. The rest of your paragraph is not true, as you know.>> --You are incorrect, because he DID mention the trades again. He mentioned them several times on the radio, once saying point-blank: "We were wrong." He also mentioned them in the newsletter, again admitting in a most direct fashion: "We were wrong." I stand by my original statement: The second part of your (2) was not true. What he said on the radio a few weeks ago WAS deceptive, to be sure, but that does NOT make your statement true. Your statement was false.