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: paulnewmanhero who wrote (40303)	11/12/2008 11:26:08 PM
From: queenleah	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

"Paul" said to octavian: Sir, number one, what is with your obsession with labels of basher or whatever. I'm not speaking for octavian, but from all appearances, it looks as if you came here solely to bash Brinker, hence the term "basher". It's a term which has been in use for some time around these boards, nothing invented specifically for you. That's ok, you're not the first, just the latest--or just the latest incarnation of an old basher ID. and what are you hear [sic] to talk about? Most of us are here to talk about Brinker, pro, con or otherwise. There are a few who seem to want to talk only about themselves. It's not logical to be as surprised as you appear to be when your posts garner some responses from those who have differing opinions.

To: paulnewmanhero who wrote (40303)	11/13/2008 12:24:13 AM
From: octavian	4 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 42834

paulnewmanhero asked: <<Sir, number one, what is with your obsession with labels of basher or whatever. That's about the third reference in four posts to me.>> --Paul, we have a number of people here who come here specifically to bash brinker. They have no interest in discussing brinker (to have a discussion, you need to answer questions and conceded points, when necessary). Also, I explained to you in the last few paragraphs of post 40271 (reproduced below) why I am trying to determine if you are a "basher" or not. I'm just trying to find out whether you are here to bash brinker, or to have a discussion. In order to do that, I need to know where you are coming from. <<number 2, what is it with me being required to answer all of your questions? honestly I skimmed your last post because i don't feel obligated to answer all my personal information to you or anyone else. why do you care about me so much anyhow?>> --I just answered that above. If you prefer to just bash, and not answer questions, just say so. I will continue to answer all of your legitimate questions because I don't have any agenda, and I believe in order to have reasonable discourse, people need to answer each other's questions, unless there is a good reason not to. In those cases, I feel a person is obligated to answer by saying, "I don't want to answer that question for such-and-such a reason." <<and what are you hear to talk about?>> --I'm here to talk about brinker, pro and con, as you would know if you had read my post 40271 instead of skimming it and missing several questions, plus my positive AND negative comments about Bob. <<not trying to pick a fight but if you are really interested in my answers repeat them again and i'll answer them. came here to talk about brinker but it seems like a few of you folks don't like that.that's what the title of the board is.>> --Again, if we are going to talk about Bob,we need to know a little more about your history with him. I told you a little about MY history with him, but I guess you missed that while skimming. If you want to know more, just ask. I'm not asking you to answer the type of questions that I wouldn't answer myself. Here are my questions again: paulnewmanhero said: <<To answer your question, I put a significant amount of money into the QQQQs in the first recommendation in October 2000 then the rest in January 2001.>> --OK. I'm assuming by "the rest," you mean 50% of your cash reserves went in. I'm also assuming you HAD these cash reserves because you followed the Jan. 2000 recommendation. Is that correct? <<Did I think he was infallible? No.>> --If you didn't think he was infallible,would you mind telling me why you put the full 50% in the QQQs (if you did)? <<Animosity toward Brinker? I would say I feel that he is now not to be trusted and I found out about his real character, or lack thereof, to little to late. Now what is your interest in Brinker and how do you feel about him?>> --I am interested in Brinker because he helped me reach critical mass and retire in 2001 at the age of 61. If I had not found him on the radio in early 1993 it is quite likely I would still be working. I feel about him now pretty much the way you do. But I don't like to see him unfairly maligned by way of exaggerations, emphasis on the negative, de-emphasis or ignoring of the positive, spin, innuendo, assumptions and guesses stated as facts, and other forms of propaganda. Not to mention failure to answer legitimate questions so as not to harm the agenda. I have no problem with legitimate criticism, such as it seems to me, you have engaged in. But you need to understand, if you are going to participate on this board, that these bashers are about the same as brinker, character-wise. You can tell that by noting how they do all of the things I said they do above, and insult other posters routinely rather than just discuss the topic as you and I have been doing.