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 (1699)	10/22/2007 11:16:27 PM
From: queenleah	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2121

Misinterpretation on your part again, stockie. You're confusing the issues. Stockie speaking: Queenie said to InvesTing (quoting queen) "I don't understand why some feel compelled to exaggerate by calling it (the QQQ call and consequences thereof) a "disaster". (stockie)...Queen's unexplained insinuation... (queen):It wasn't an "insinuation"--it was a declarative statement" (stockie:)Ok--so you think that this is not a disaster for the recipient of this shoddy incompetent, many would say dishonest handling of the advice? In the first instance, I was clearly talking about your exaggeration of the QQQ call as a "disaster". Yes, we can agree to disagree that the QQQ call and how people followed it or did not follow it constituted a "disaster" percentage-wise for anyone who followed the guidelines, even those who followed to the maximum, considering themselves the "most aggressive" and risk-tolerant of investors. As long as the guidelines were followed, I fail to understand how roughly 15% of portfolio is a "disaster". No one has explained that. Painful, to be sure, we agree. But "disaster"? And if I had to guess, I'd guess that those who honestly considered themselves among the most aggressive and risk-tolerant of investors are probably those who got over it the fastest. But you used the term "insinuation" in reference to another issue, that being my statement that I had made up my original portfolio losses many times over. I said THAT was not an "insinuation" on my part, it was a declarative statement. Now it seems you desire to apply that statement to the issue of the QQQ call and confuse the two different issues. I said, and I still say I lost more by not following Brinker's conversion to cash recommendation than I ever lost by investing a conservative amount on the QQQ call. Why does it bother you that I take responsibility for my own decisions?