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: octavian who wrote (41873)	1/3/2009 9:17:24 PM
From: queenleah	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

octavian said, quoting "marketlover": <<What I am wondering is if there is any precedent or activity in the direction of holding Brinker accountable for his poor advice? In other words is anyone contemplating lawsuit?>> The answer is yes, yes, yes, if marketlover means empty talk. They (the Brinkerbashers) have been talking about such empty nonsense for years. No one ever seems to follow through. But then, the whole question is so preposterous, it's not surprising that all they do is talk about it. Even the Brinkerbashers are smart enough to know there's no legal leg to stand on to sue financial advisers even when they are honestly mistaken, though the Bashers would never have the honesty to admit it.

To: octavian who wrote (41873)	1/4/2009 2:22:36 PM
From: Math Junkie	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

I wonder if he wants people to sue Jack Bogle for recommending that people stay fully invested?

To: octavian who wrote (41873)	1/12/2009 1:01:19 AM
From: marketlover	2 Recommendations Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 42834

Octavian, Now that you have had a chance to read my posts on The Beehive Buzz, I'm curious if you would care to revise your post of Jan 4th: "Some dufus using the ID of "marketlover" actually asked these questions on honey's google board . . ."? You duly noted later on Honeybee's blog "Anyway, I do appreciate you responding, and in a polite way. It is very rare among bashers." My comments on Honeybee's blog were based on my belief that Brinker should have some degree of accountability for his month after month of wrong advise. My question about lawsuit was a curiosity, as I have and had no plans or interest in any legal action. My entire point was that Brinker would be well served to refund the subscription price for his wrong advices to his subscribers. That's my opinion and is most likely not shared by other members of this group. But, that's what makes chatting so interesting. That is if we can avoid the temptation to attack and make fun of the poster. I am fully responsible for my investments and for following Brinker's bad advice. I do not blame him for my losses, but do not think I should have to pay for bad advice. I don't care about the subscription cost, as much as the principle. Now I know many will say, you pay for the opinion of the "expert", without any guarantees. That is true. But an honorable person who gives bad advice would step up and take repsonsbility and apologize and refund, IMO. That's an opinion and can be disputed, but it is not "bashing", as many are too quick to declare. My observation is that many posters on internet chat groups (yourself included) are too quick to use sarcasm and personal attacks rather than engaging in conversation. Without any prior conversation with me you posted on this site that I was a "Dufus" and made other sarcastic remarks. My personal view is that people who use sarcasm and attacks as their primary form of communication have a void in the substance of their argument. Marketlover