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: Market Savant & Radio Host -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Math Junkie who wrote (34402)	2/7/2008 9:49:00 PM
From: Kirk ©	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42834

You carefully avoided answering all three of my questions by listing something else Brinker said to talk around the questions that remain. Are you being obtuse to be dishonest or is this really too difficult for you to comprehend? AGAIN... but made even easier to understand. #1a Explain why TEFQX ..... still remains on HOLD, but not listed as such in the newsletter. [Hint, it is a HOLD and yet not covered in the newsletter.... where is his explanation for why?] #1b Explain why he dropped it from his recommended list, still on hold, without telling people to sell for a huge loss. [Hint, it is a HOLD and yet not covered in the newsletter.... where is his explanation for why?] #2 Explain why he said a secular bear market ended in mid 2006 just as the market was peaking last year in mid 2007, a secular bear market that never was. [Hint: There NEVER WAS a secular bear market yet he declared it over! How is that explaining anything? I see it as layering another deception on people to hide he was wrong or didn't understand that the definition of a secular bear ending means the unluckiest investor to buy at the very top is ahead, which includes dividends. Even Brinker on the air said people who talk about returns without including dividends have something to hide. He proves it.] #3 Explain why he said the secular bear market would not be over unless the S&P went 10% higher, then he declared it over with it was only fractionally higher, both on a closing basis. [He never explained why he changed his definition to something non standard then, after I hammered him on it for a year or so, came around to my definition and simply declared the secular bear was over...when in fact there never was one.] Brinker has NEVER explained this changes in very important concepts. BTW, what happened to MOABO or the most important thing to do in a bear market is to preserve capital? He NEVER explained why he didn't preserve capital with TEFQX and QQQ in 2000 and 2001 and 2002. He simply never repeated the phrase "the most important thing to do in a bear market is to preserve capital" since his own actions would make him look foolish for not following his own advice.