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 (24529)	8/29/2006 11:26:46 AM
From: Math Junkie	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 42834

"Shortly after I retired I got Bob's bulletin to put up to half my stock market funds into QQQ 'immediately.'" Why do people lie like that? Brinker never told retired people to adopt aggressive objectives.

To: stockalot who wrote (24529)	8/29/2006 2:38:48 PM
From: queenleah	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

Another test of their credibility is their characterization of this article as being supportive of Bob Brinker. Stockalot, you'd be better off and a bit more credible, perhaps, if you at least tried for a little objectivity. I didn't characterize anything as being supportive or oppositional to Brinker, as you do. The article was objective as far as I can see, if a little dramatically written. That's ok, that's all anyone can ask. Brimelow cites both sides, pro and con. I just posted a brief paragraph of the pro--strangely enough, the pro side doesn't get cited here. I'll let people judge if Dija and Queen are right and that this is a coveted recommendation of Bob Brinker by Peter Brimelow. And just where did I say the article was anything of the kind? You're distorting again. You're exaggerating. I didn't claim to be "right" and I clearly said I hadn't heard the phone call, but to say someone was "shouted down" or "hiding" something is pure conjecture. I did say I believe dija is more objective than any of you Brinkerbashers. Are you reduced to making up your fantasies out of blue sky again? How disappointing to see anyone have to sink to that level. Sure bothers you when we post just a little bit of the parts that so mysteriously get left out. Actually, the Brimelow article was about how much mail Brinker and his supporters and his detractors generate, and about Hulbert's analysis, and supportive of the way Hulbert does things, not a case of Brimelow approving or disapproving Brinker. Anyway Queen and Dija quote this article and see it as supportive of Bob Brinker's advice. Did I say that? No, I see the Brimelow article as neither supportive nor oppositional to Brinker. Pro and con, both sides. I know you're not accustomed to that. Seems to come as a shock. You be the judge, and if you find that this is absolutely the worst sort of comdemnation [sic] an advisor could get, then you'll know Dija and Queen are likely pulling the same "black is white" scam on Bobby's spin job on Mary. "Worst sort of condemnation"? The Brimelow article? It doesn't condemn nor support Brinker. This appears to be the Brimelow article from 2002, four years ago. Why would anyone think it's relevant to Mary's phone call?

To: stockalot who wrote (24529)	8/29/2006 8:28:34 PM
From: dijaexyahoo	Respond to of 42834

stockalot said: <<There is no doubt to anyone hearing Brinker talk to Mary on the phone that he was working overtime to keep any mention of his having recommended a huge investment in QQQQs several years ago that to this day has not been closed out and Brinker is HIDING.>> --Wrong. << He interupted her and raised his voice to be sure to shut her up or prevent her from being heard on several occasions.>> --Wrong. <<Dija and Queen are going out of their way to try to claim Brinker was not spinning like a top in his call with Mary.>> --Wrong. << No one who knows the subject would give them any credibility if they heard the call.>> --Wrong. <<Another test of their credibility is their characterization of this article as being supportive of Bob Brinker.>> --Wrong. << Anyway Queen and Dija quote this article and see it as supportive of Bob Brinker's advice.>> --Wrong. Wow! That is quite an accomplishment, being wrong so often in ONE (1) post!