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: wooden ships who wrote (3885)	3/7/1998 11:38:00 PM
From: Ken Brown	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

Truman, Thank you for the definition of "ad hominem" - I took German, so I don't even own a Latin dictionary! >>Meanwhile, from what I gathered of today's radio show, Brinker remains doggedly bullish and expects the market to reach or eclipse the DJIA $9000 level anno Domini 1998.<< I appreciate the update, as our local station (KXL) was broadcasting a local college basketball game instead of Money Talk. :-( I'm counting on being able to listen tomorrow. ("anno Domini" - don't need a dictionary for that one! :) Ken

To: wooden ships who wrote (3885)	3/8/1998 12:07:00 AM
From: Trebor	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 42834

>Meanwhile, Brinker remains doggedly bullish and expects the market to reach or eclipse the DJIA $9000 level anno Domini 1998.< What puzzles me is how he can be so doggedly bullish while also warning us that the S&P price/earnings ratio is almost at a dangerously high level. This seems contradictory to me. Perhaps he'll shed some light on this tomorrow.

To: wooden ships who wrote (3885)	3/11/1998 3:48:00 PM
From: Rillinois	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

Truman, I thought your explanation of ad hominem attacks was excellent. In your post (#3885) you said: ""ad hominem" is Latin for "to the man." It refers to arguments which stray from a strategy of issue and point oriented debate to a strategy of personal attack on one or more of the discussants. Some say that ad hominem arguments are a sign of argumentative weakness." Because your explanation was so great, I would respect your opinion on whether or not you feel Justa Werkenstiffs' latest response (#4004) to me is considered an ad hominem attack. If so, do I have the obligation to answer his ad hominem attack? In other words, if the objective of the ad hominem attack is to get the other person to talk about something else and stray from the original allegation, am I falling for the trap if I spend most of my time responding to Justa's remarks? BTW, is this a sign of argumentative weakness on Justa's part? I believe I make a sincere effort to answer all the questions posed to me, including Justa's questions. However, Justa seems to keep coming up with more smearing tactics, instead of acknowledging and/or refuting my allegations DIRECTLY with facts. Thank you in advance for you input. I'll wait for your response before I make a decision on whether or not to respond to Justa's latest post to me. Best Regards. Rillinois