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: Kirk © who wrote (24583)	8/29/2006 5:54:38 PM
From: queenleah	Respond to of 42834

So you are claiming that people who PAID for advice (aka subscribers) are wrong for complaining that the reported record by a service that makes money selling reports on Bob Brinker are wrong to complain to that service for leaving out data that is material to the record? Where did I claim that? I didn't say anyone was wrong. I was quoting Brimelow, verbatim, sans editorial comments. These are people who paid Brinker for advice complaining to the rating service that the methodology is flawed. At the very least, the rating service, HFD, should tell us what the portfolios did for people who followed the advice. You mean in the old Brimelow article, or a newer one? I didn't say they were wrong for complaining. To be frank, I don't know how many complained about "methodology". I believe Brimelow when he says he gets lots of letters PRO and CON. Not saying there's anything wrong with the Brimelow article, but the message from one investor that he quoted who said Brinker "ruined" his retirement is recycled. That doesn't make it invalid, but somehow it seems to have gotten stuck in a revolving door. But I think what the complaining is about for the most part, is not Hulbert's methodology. And I personally think Hulbert is as upfront about that as anyone can be. Some here seem to think that since they can't prove that Brinker was dishonest in his comment re Hulbert, then it must be Hulbert that's dishonest. And I'm not talking about the subscribers who lost money on the Qs. I don't need you to bring up superfluous crap about what "some people" say who never subscribed of followed the advice. I am talking about subscribers upset enough to write the mouthpiece for a rating service and tell them their method is flawed. :) And I don't need you to bring up what I choose to bring up. You write your way, I'll write mine. And I won't be so discourteous as to call your opinions "superfluous crap" and I won't be rude and dismissive, though I may point out where I think you're off the track. I might even choose to point out where I think you're blowing smoke. And I will say what I wish to say, no matter what you do or don't "need". 'Kay?