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, Moneytalk and Marketimer -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: queenleah who wrote (1446)	10/7/2007 10:49:54 PM
From: Honey_Bee	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 2121

Ms queen...thank goodness readers can read what Dr. James actually said about the Bob Brinker's. His words stand on their own. Dr. James has clearly admitted to discussing "ideas/opinions," and ONLY "ideas/opinions." Anything beyond that is strictly false accusations which the Brinker's cannot substantiate or even give an example of... I especially like the following paragraph. It has been a very long time since anyone has been quite so ACCURATE about the Bob Brinker's. Dr James wrote: . My guess is Bob would (if it were legally possible) shut down any fair discussion of his past and present published and spoken ideas/opinions/prognostications. Fair commentary on them when it reaches a lot of subscribers undermines Bob\\\'s ability to use doubletalk, coverups, and other spin attempts to appear more prescient than he clearly is." .

To: queenleah who wrote (1446)	10/8/2007 12:33:04 AM
From: octavian	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2121

Queen, I interpreted James note to honey as a denial. Here, again, is what he said: "Hi Honey - I asked specifically what they believed I was sharing online that they felt was not fair use and the person I talked to either would not or could not tell me what my "offense" was other than saying it had come to their attention that I was indeed sharing info about the newsletter online." --OK. Above he says they could not give any specific examples of James posting privileged info. Then James said: << I suspect it was my less than flattering habit of pointing out how what Bob said in his newsletter was sufficiently vague that he could and likely would latter spin it so it would appear he was more prescient than in truth he was. Bob - IMHO- is a master of doublespeak.>> --So then James offered his GUESS as to what might have actually been the reason. This tells me that James didn't know of any examples of posting info that violated copyright laws. Otherwise, why would he have been trying to guess what the real reason was? I read that as a denial. Of course, it would have been far better all around if he would simply have said "I didn't do what they accused me of doing." Of course #2, it's also quite possible that Elan-Quatro hit the nail on the head a few posts ago.