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 (37507)	7/31/2008 10:30:13 PM
From: InvesTing	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

so nice to see you weigh in predictably Math. I will enjoy reviewing your history and the facts in this saga of the multi alias shill that fooled Dave here at SI and you. Or maybe just Dave and you knew the truth about this person's multiple shill screen names here-- who some claim is a famous member of your bot den.

To: Math Junkie who wrote (37507)	7/31/2008 10:30:19 PM
From: InvesTing	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

Math, am I lying about your steadfast support for this lying shill who hoodwinked Dave and SI and all other posters here? Queen after being banished from this site posted at Yahoo UTEk "Hmmmm. I posted two or three times today at SI. All of a sudden tonight, I'm banished. I have no idea why. I guess somebody with some pull doesn't like me. LOL. So long for now. Good luck dija, math and shres. " Ah how touching eh Math? You brought up the fact that Peanut Butter (the poster she denied being was banished simultaneously) so the Queen shill had to get busy. Notice she never said a word about Peanut Butter who she had denied being the hands on the keyboard. But your pointing out the obvious caused this amazing "recollection" LOL "Then there was another person in the business here in another department that had an account on another computer, so I suspected that was the hangup and wrote again with the explanation." You do admit to having no open mind about this obvious multialias shill who lied on this site don't you? You did post this to alibi for this obivous liar didn't you? "If she says she was posting as Peanut Butter, then I will believe it. She is the only person who knows." Odd, even proof beyond reasonable doubt is good enough for a jury but here you are as a Brinker promoter alibing for this obvious liar claiming that only a confession would persuade you. Telling of the objectivity huh? Here is an exchange between us about this now proven liar who posted as Queen and Peanut butter/peanut_butter_luvr-after telling us that "she" only posted as Queen and never used any other account--coming up with the cocknbull story with your help about the other department. "So how do you explain the disappearance of Butter at the same time as Queen? You think SI didn't check the ISP or whatever it is they check ?" I have no information on what SI does or doesn't check, but Queen has already told us that there is a person in another office who had an account here. I suppose you're going to tell us that there couldn't possibly be another person in her family business who generally agrees with her about Brinker-related subjects. "You notice Queen immediately had a claim of a large office and another department to explain the multiple alias posting." I don't think she said it was a "large" office. "Do you really think SI banished more than Queen and Butter in last evening?" I only know of two, but didn't she just get through saying that there are two people at her business who registered here? "It would be highly unlikey I would say even for you to call that a coincidence." I think Peanut Butter is the other person at her place of business who was registered here. That seems to be what she said in one of her posts today. She also said, IIRC, that Peanut Butter is NOT the old "Butter" from Yahoo, and she couldn't know that unless she knew one or the other of them. "So it seems more than obvious that Queen was caught posting as Queen and Butter and SI did in both aliases." Claiming "it's obvious" is not a substitute for evidence. The only evidence you have is speculation and plausibility arguments. She is the one who knows what is actually going on where she works. I can't see why a rational person would believe that you know more about what is going on where she works than she does. "You can disagree but it will take some of the same thought processes you used to claim that someone was posing as Bob Brinker jr." I never claimed that. I think the odds that you are right that Bob Brinker, Jr. posted here under his own name are in excess of 99%. I would put the odds that you are right about Queen at less than 1%. "sHE was caught. Why isn't "butter" complaining ? LOL" If you read her posts today, then you know that she said that SI apparently won't allow two people to register from the same location. Figure it out. If that is indeed SI's policy, then the only way they can both post here from now on is if they do it on the same account, and under the same screen name. " Gullible Gullible Gullible Less than 1% you say here right MATH Whiz? Now what does your math tell you about the odds of this post being made by Queen? It is answering Dija's post to Queen as Queen.....but made under the alias of peanut_butter_luvr who Queen/PEanut Butter admitted was the alias he used on UTEK. Re: The Gang of Hate 21-Feb-06 10:05 pm dija said to queen "I hate to disagree with you, but this jerk is definitely kirk. Almost everything he writes has "kirk" written all over it." <br><br>No problem, dija, you certainly may be right. And you probably know more about it than I do. (We can still be "friends", right?) <br><br>dija to dupe: <br>--Yah, right. You really relate to others well, don't you? LOL <br><br>In this, we enjoy 100% agreement. :o) <br><br>Your opinion, please, dija. Is he including me in his little gang of "those rejected, jilted, told they were not wanted"? I'm not sure if he is, but if he is, he's wrong again. I have never been rejected at 101 or asked to leave that august body of cree...um...characters. But I have declined to be there of my own free will, uninvited by anyone NOT to be there. <br><br>You're probably thinking I should ask him. You're right again. But I guess I don't really care enough to try to squeeze an honest answer out of him. I'd probably just get him all agitated again. Nobody wants that. :o) Rating : (No ratings)Rate it: peanut_butt... Math remember you stuck up for this BS througout. REcall Queen claimed that "she" did not share an account with Peanut Butter/peanut_butter_luvr but they were in different departments. You said that it was less than 1% chance that Queen was lying about not posting as peanutbutter/peanut_butter_luvr. In the post above it is obvious that Queen F'd up. Proved it was LYING and was indeed posting as PeanutButter/peanut_butter_luvr and lying to SI, Dave and used you. You were very willing to buy into the BS and promote the scheme overlooking all tells. Now are you going to claim this post was not made by the person thinking it was posting as Queen? We'll look at more of your "evidence" if t hat is the case.