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: queenleah who wrote (37477)	7/31/2008 12:23:53 PM
From: joefromspringfield	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42834

queenleah said: " What's so wrong with Brinker (if true) protecting his name and his reputation by all legal means from defamation by those whose goal is simply to defame him out of their never-ending anger and disappointment?" His reputation as it is being touted on his website is based on a fraud. His performance numbers do not include ALL his trades. My goal is not to defame him but to get the truth out about his record.

To: queenleah who wrote (37477)	7/31/2008 7:34:29 PM
From: octavian	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

queen said: <<Thank you for your opinion, Joe. But you didn't answer the question. What's so wrong with Brinker (if true) protecting his name and his reputation by all legal means from defamation by those whose goal is simply to defame him out of their never-ending anger and disappointment?>> --Queen, this is an issue I can see both sides of. First, I don't like censorship. It should not be necessary for Bob to have to censor free discussion. IMO it would not be necessary if he didn't have things he was trying to hide. The same is, of course, true of kirk. If they were honest and open, in the way that Jim Cramer and others are, it would not be necessary for them to censor free discussion. We all know the real reason kirk kicked me, fish and others off his "free discussion" board is because we were asking questions that he didn't want asked. That is also why he eventually ran to facebook and started an "invitation-only" board. That is also the real reason Bob closed his own discussion boards. OTOH, the only thing we know (or can assume we know) about recent events is that Bob wrote a letter to Fund Alarm. We were told that he complained about someone copying a significant part of his copyrighted newsletter on that forum. THAT is a legitimate complaint, and I don't see how anyone can blame him for complaining. As far as I know, he only asked that Fund Alarm cease and desist that practice, and remove the offending post. Another very reasonable request. As I understand it, the owner of Fund Alarm voluntarily decided to end all discussion of Brinker. If that is in fact the case, no one can blame Bob for that. As for Kirk's facebook board and S101, I don't think any of us know whether Bob was involved in that or not. Most of us don't know what was written at kirk's board, although I can certainly assume it was mostly propaganda and "attacks by spin." Something tells me the bashers who DO know what was written there that might have prompted the closure aren't going to tell us. -:) In any event, I hope Bob was not responsible for the closure of that board. We have no evidence that I know of, that he was. And even IF he was, he might well have had a good reason, although for me personally, it would take a VERY good reason for me to endorse it. Bottom line, I oppose censorship, but we don't really know that bob has been involved in any censorship since he closed his own boards.