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: InvesTing who wrote (1537)	10/10/2007 8:38:24 PM
From: queenleah	Respond to of 2121

I didn't say any of that, stockie...you're "extrapolating" again. And WRONGLY, I might add. I said "so what" with regard to whether Brinker is or isn't a "nice guy". And I said "agreed" with regard to the fact that other people seem to be more upset than James himself..if I remember correctly, he [James] said something about the fact that he was thinking of not renewing, so it wasn't such a big deal. It might appear that others have other motives for wanting to resuscitate a dead horse. James said he called and no one would explain what he had "leaked" . James said he was unaware of any such leak in his posts and since they are all public it is very telling that to this instant "NOONE" (that's bob Brinker as Don Lane in a hissy fit lingo Queen no need for a Sic) has posted one thing from James that would be a leak justifying Brinker's action. Where did James say he was "unaware of any such leak"? Is "unaware" the same as denial? In the long sentence above, where do James' comments leave off, and stockie's begin? We'll never know about about "real motives" if they indeed exist other than what's been offered. If James doesn't care, why would you care so much? Everything else is "guessed" as you rightly said.

To: InvesTing who wrote (1537)	10/11/2007 12:22:10 AM
From: Math Junkie	Respond to of 2121

Judging by your use of the term, you seem to be viewing things through "odd" colored glasses today! 8-)

To: InvesTing who wrote (1537)	10/11/2007 8:23:20 PM
From: octavian	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2121

InvestTing said: <<James said he was unaware of any such leak in his posts...>> --I don't believe he said that. <<...and since they are all public it is very telling that to this instant "NOONE"...has posted one thing from James that would be a leak justifying Brinker's action.>> --I tried to find some dr.james posts on kirk's "free" forum, but I couldn't find any. Ditto for honey's beehive. Therefore I would assume (guess) that his subscription was canceled because he called bob "senile" and said his newsletter was essentially worthless. Personally, I would say bob had a LOT more justification for canceling James' subscription than kirk had for kicking me off his site, harrassing bbaddict off his site, and deleting skeptic's innocent posts. <<Yet it seems Octavian comes to the same conclusion....ie that Brinker was simply poed at the substance of James posts...>> --I didn't come to any "conclusion." I'm just guessing.