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: octavian who wrote (1449)	10/8/2007 1:01:02 PM
From: queenleah	Respond to of 2121

dija, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I just don't see that James asking a question and getting an answer that he did not consider satisfactory or specific enough, constitutes a denial. We could just as well interpret his later comments to the effect of "nothing wrong with it" as a confirmation. JMO.

To: octavian who wrote (1449)	10/8/2007 3:00:37 PM
From: Math Junkie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2121

"<< 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?" This is a plausibility argument, not proof. Another plausibility argument is how do you know he didn't have his own guess as to Brinker's reason, but knew that it was just a guess, and wanted to find out if his guess was right? Another possibility is that he might not have known for sure if he did anything wrong, and didn't want to admit what he did, either to Brinker's office personnel or on a public message board. We just don't know. A denial that leaves unknowns like that is not really a denial. BTW, does anyone know whether Brinker would have to prove copyright infringement in order to have the right to refuse a subscription? In order to look at the principle involved, instead of who people think their friends and enemies are, what about other newsletter writers? If someone who used to post with a screen name related to fishing, for example, were a vociferous detractor of the writer and performance of an online financial newsletter, would the writer need to prove copyright infringement in order to refuse the subscription? Or could he do it just because he disagrees with and/or doesn't like what the guy writes about him?