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 (29458)	3/30/2007 7:43:06 PM
From: Honey_Bee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

Over at the Buzzin' Brinker Beehive, the problem about Math is that some think he is not "the sharpest knife in the drawer," and others think he is the "sharpest tack in Brinker's subscriber base." I guess those two opinions don't have to be mutually exclusive. :) :) :) .

To: stockalot who wrote (29458)	3/30/2007 9:32:52 PM
From: Math Junkie	Respond to of 42834

You must understand that with Math it is a reflex to defend Brinker. Even in the indefensible QQQ trade his natural inclination is to mitigate the deception. My reflex and natural inclination are to try to keep the Brinker-bashers honest. An impossible task to be sure, but somebody's got to stand up for objectivity, fairness, and scrupulous adherence to the facts, because it's for darn sure the bashers aren't going to do it. And rather than minimize the deception, I have posted unsolicited complaints about it on numerous occasions. As you very well know but dishonestly seek to hide, I recently listed several of those occasions here on this thread. Message 23395096 Similarly of course Math has given Brinker a total pass on touting UTEK for a long while as his only buy in the late 90s without disclosing that he had a fee based relationship with UTEK. As I have said before, I think it would have been better if he had disclosed it. I don't automatically attach sinister motives to it the way you do, however. BTW, it was not his only buy in the late '90s. He recommended quite a few mutual funds too. The crux of Math's argument is that if you were not present at the meetings where Brinker was selected to be paid by UTEK and know for sure that there was a quid pro quo, then it was totally ethical. No, the crux of my argument is that it was ethical if his business dealings with the company were not contingent on his recommending the stock, and he sincerely believed it was a good investment. If you're saying it's hard to prove otherwise, you're probably right. When confronted with evidence that Jr. posted on this board as himself Math from his corner claimed that it could be someone else because "just because I can't give you a possible explanation doesn't mean there is not one.". :) As you very well know but dishonestly seek to hide, I agree with you in believing that it was him, but unlike you, I think we should never mistake belief for knowledge. You really hate that, don't you? Math immediately came to defense of this some would say deceptive practice and indignantly proclaimed 'I don't know who is the publisher and editor of that newsletter and I would bet neither do you" I don't think I said anything on this topic until the day after Honey brought it up, and my first reaction was to decline to state an opinion in response to your asking me about it: "I don't know the extent to which Brinker Sr. is involved in the writing of the new investment letter, so I have no basis for forming an opinion on the propriety of putting his name on it." About 5 minutes later I gave him the page, one of probably 50 links on the front page of Jr.s Fixed Income Advisor that stated clearly that Jr. (did not go by that suffix) was the editor and publisher and his wife was also the editor." Speaking of deception, why are you leaving out the fact that that page lists Brinker Sr. as a consultant? Speaking of deception, why did you leave out the fact that it was one of only SIX links on the TOP of their home page? Speaking of deception, you say it took you only five minutes to find it and post the link to the thread, and yet you have the hubris to try to portray it as difficult to find. Then Math's alibi for this deception was " Well there you are anyone can find out that Jr. was the editor and publisher so there is no deception"..... Speaking of deception, why do you put paraphrasings in quotation marks? It really doesn't matter according to Math if people are decieved by the ad on Brinker's show and think the host is the editor and publisher and not a young person with apparently no experience in the financial industry...If Brinker was caught holding up a bank, Math would swear that it was the bank's fault and the teller likely wrote the note and put a gun in his hand. The "About Us" page that YOU found quickly and easily is one of the six most prominent links on the Web page mentioned in the ad. How can you sleep at night after dishonestly comparing this to robbing people at gunpoint?