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: Investor2 who wrote (27101)	12/14/2006 2:28:30 PM
From: Honey_Bee	Respond to of 42834

In light of what you have said, why do you think some excellent posts about Bob Brinker were deleted from here recently--or so it certainly appears? This one for instance, and Math Junkie's reply to it (which I don't have): . Math Junkie commented: "I still can't figure out why some think that doing it under an alias made it worse." . Stockalot said: "I can't speak for others but I find it particularly disgusting the way in which Brinker comported himself regarding UTEK. Some often take the whole saga in piecemeal and try to make the individual moves Brinker made look innocent. . Brinker had a national radio show and a PBS appearance where he pitched UTEK. In his newsletter Brinker had UTEK as his ONLY BUY for a couple years at the highs of the tech bull market. . Most people attracted to this thread and the one on at Silicon Investor were attracted by Bob Brinker's touting of the stock. . When these people arrived at the internet site discussing UTEK; Bob Brinker under his alias of Don Lane was touting the stock, pretending to be someone without an interest in UTEK other than as an investor and pretending to be a subscriber of Brinker's but lying and denying he was Bob Brinker himself. . Bob Brinker under his alias of Don Lane spent post after post hammering these people that came to the site urging them to buy and to hold the stock. He went into raving rants threatening those shorting the stock with a fate worse than death. . Brinker never did this with any other stock. He would pretend that he made better calls than he did with other stocks, but in no case did he ever urge people on the net to buy, hold and not short the stock. . Under his alias, Bob Brinker discussed the small float of UTEK and that it was benefitting from the "Brinker effect" in which if Bob Brinker (himself) touted the stock his sucker subscribers would hold it until he said to sell and thus anyone shorting the small float stock whose price would be manipulated by this effect would be killed. . Brinker spent scores of posts with this kind of crap--he jumped all over a poster who pointed out his lies, but never responded to the facts the poster presented describing Brinker under his alias as a "cheerleader". . It was apparent that Brinker under his alias was desperate for the price of UTEK to rise. There was no objectivity and he was focused on the stock price like a laser beam. . So you have a radio guy pitching the stock on the show and on national TV. Brinker had this stock as his only buy in the newsletter for an extended period. Then you have Brinker spending all kinds of effort, often with erroneous claims, once admitting the ability to manipulate the price due to the small float and Brinker's audience. . Only later did it come out that Brinker was being paid by UTEK at the time all of this was going on. Brinker never disclosed that he was being paid by UTEK. . I believe also that the SEC now says it is illegal to do what Brinker was doing. It is something that should obviously be illegal. Brinker the nasty namecaller that he is is quick to call others on matters of ethics. It seems the fact that what he was doing is now illegal, was unethical and the ways of a charlatan prior to that is easily seen. Well easily seen without an agenda to alibi for someone guilty of the most unethical conduct I have heard on the internet about a stock." . .

To: Investor2 who wrote (27101)	12/14/2006 7:39:49 PM
From: dijaexyahoo	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 42834

Investor2 said: <<..."Many if not most of the current participants - on both sides of the debate - are far more interested in posting about each other than they are about the topic at hand." Indeed, noise does appear to be preferred to signal when it comes to the topic of this board.>> --Investor2, I think your post is off-topic! -:) Personally, though, I don't mind at all. I believe in free speech, not censorship. In some cases, in a debate, it is necessary to talk about other posters. Faulty, weak, unethical debating tactics need to be pointed out. The character, or lack thereof, of the people you are debating with, needs to be spotlighted for all to see. If you are talking about the honey-elan debate, then I agree those posts are off topic, although they are very valuable in that they demonstrate honey's character, or lack thereof. Again, it IS important to know the character of those you are debating. Still, I can understand why some people would prefer those types of "debates" were taken elsewhere. OTOH, it is simple enough to skip over those posts, so in that respect I have NO IDEA why it would really bother you or anyone else. I would think you would be MUCH more concerned about censorship.