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 (1456)	10/8/2007 1:00:39 PM
From: Kirk ©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2121

"Revenge" being legally canceling the subscription? LOL and Big Deal, but that's when the hollering started, isn't it?" No. Wrong again. This seems to be a habit for some of you. The "hollering" started in 1998 when Bob Brinker linked directly to my discussion boards at Suite101 and he demanded I remove a question Jack Swanson asked about his financial relationship with UTEK, a stock he recommended on TV and in his newsletter without disclosing his relationship with the company. I suggested Bob "answer Jack's questions and set the record straight" and they chose to remove links to my site and the personal attacks began. Seems to me that the Brinker opposition takes it all far harder (and makes a lot more of it) than James himself. I have no idea how "hard" anyone takes it. It certainly didn't bother me in January 2000 when the subscription I had to "reward" Brinker financially for the example we made of him on Suite101 was returned. I don't follow his advice and I have other ways to get the newsletter info. Until he has his subscribers sign legally binding NDAs, I doubt this will change. I simply posted here to correct some of your misconceptions and point out no copyrights were violated. Rande and I got our subscriptions canceled in Jan 2000, probably because we were advising people that a potential sell signal MIGHT be timely, Brinker would also have to be correct getting back in. When you add in taxes and any possible mistake he might make, we didn't think it was worth the risk. Sure enough, at least for me, following his advice, paying huge taxes (most of my non fixed income was in taxable accounts) and buying the QQQ for the aggressive portfolio I have... it would have been total disaster to have followed Brinker. ( two of my largest individual stocks were LRCX and HP. Both are higher today than in Jan 2000 while QQQQ is still down nearly 50%... I was in a very high tax bracket from taking profits in 1999 and 2000 and was at the verge of hitting AMT simply from capital gains....)

To: queenleah who wrote (1456)	10/8/2007 1:25:47 PM
From: InvesTing	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2121

"Revenge" being legally canceling the subscription? LOL and Big Deal, but that's when the hollering started, isn't it? Seems to me that the Brinker opposition takes it all far harder (and makes a lot more of it) than James himself." For once I agree with you that James is not terribly upset except likely for the dishonesty and pettiness of the small taters newsletter purveyor. I believe James was on record as someone who was not going to renew his subscription and indeed was critical of the total BS wishy washy "have it both ways" crappolla that Brinker's newsletter often is. Indeed I believe Octavian realizes that likely there was no great leak of important proprietary information but an angry Bob Brinker who wants nothing less than complete adulation which those who read his posts as Don Lane or listen to his program know. If this is the case it is quite in Brinker's character to act when it would not cost him much to "show that so&so". As I recall Brinker was returning subscription funds and cancelling those who were critical of the QQQ guidance, not because they were sharing newsletter information in late 2000 when Bobby Junior was working day and night removing posts critical of the handling. Finally of course they gave up and dropped the discussion boards, and lied about the reason. Indeed the whole cancellation policy then was about a petty thin skinned dictator. Why would it be different this time?