THREAD FULL!!! Bob_Brinker_Discussion_41,600 is CLOSED!!!!!

Top 1483. Jun 1, 2002 5:41 AM

» Will_L - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: newinvestor lacking key

In response to message posted by dija:

"I do not understand why they can't just say "Brinker made a good call in Jan. 2000." But they can't! They cannot admit that he has ever made a good call."

Dija, remove the scales from your eyes and read for comprehension. Brinker's effort, no matter what you call it to take some money off the table was a good thing to do in Jan. 2000. Now you of course want to stop there and put the scales back on for "the rest of the story".

"I can't understand why they can't just say "OJ Simpson won the Heisman trophy in 1976" But they can't."---OJ Simpson Apologists

"I don't understand why they can't just say "Bill Clinton balanced the budget" But they can't."
--Bill Clinton Apologists

"I don't understand why they can't just say "Richard Nixon opened the door to China" but they can't. ---- Richard Nixon apologists.

"I don't understand why they can't just say, "Osma Bin Laden helped the US backed guerillas in Afganistan kick the Soviets out" but they can't"-----Osama Bin Laden apologists.

You see Dija, all of these folks have to be judged in the totality of their deeds. In Brinker's case that would mean the totality of the advice he gave.

Was it all bad? Heck no. But that is not the point. Brinker sets himself up as an "expert marketimer". Now I'm sure we'll have someone say that he never used those words. Let me ask you this. Would you ask people to pay you 185 bucks a year if you claimed to be a "poor marketimer"? Would a newsletter titled "Halfass Marketimer" generate sales? No. He sets himself up as being uniquely capable of predicting the stock market. He also claimed for a long time to pick superior mutual funds and he gave the impression that he was a "technology expert" and a great stock picker.

Truth be told he botched all of those roles badly on many occasions. He got some hits, but struck out a lot. Brinker and you apologists don't want to look at the whole record, just parts that suit a ridiculous notion that Brinker has more hits than misses. He has added NOTHING to anyone following all of his advice in comparison to the buy and hold investor.

It's all B/s. "oh we don't count that screw-up cause it was the "auxillary timing model"." "We don't count that screw up cause it wasn't in the newsletter portfolios". "We don't count that stock pick cause it wasn't in the newsletter". "We don't disclose that Brinker was being paid by UTEK, the only stock he was recommending because he didn't think about it."

Aaron Task said it best PURE HUBRIS

-- posted by Will_L

Top 1484. Jun 1, 2002 8:18 AM

» Fred2000 - Re: Re: Re: Precision

In response to message posted by JIMMY62:

"The CTR was based on the auxiliary timing model."

JIMMY62... And so was "Goldilocks and the Three Bears." Having one model that can predict the stock market is an unrealized challenge. Having two models, one for the general market and one for CTR's is a fairy tale. IMHO. smile

-- posted by Fred2000

Top 1485. Jun 1, 2002 11:34 AM

» Erik75 - Re: newinvestor lacking key

In response to message posted by JIMMY62:

The January 2000 call was prescient.

With brinker's success rate over the past two years, "Prescient" doen't seem to be a fitting description of what happened. More likely, the phrase "Every now and then even a blind pig finds an acorn." is a better description of the January 2000 call.

-- posted by Erik75

Top 1486. Jun 1, 2002 1:16 PM

» AL_W - A concern,,,,

from SI..... http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk...

To:Richard Palm who wrote (16051)
From: sat2000 Friday, May 31, 2002 2:38 PM
Respond to of 16053

Richard I agree with you. Only trouble is how does one know in advance when Bob or Elaine finally gets it right so the "model" can add value?
Steve Thompson

Steve, we'll know this has happened when he quits selling newsletters, 'cause he'll be making more money in stocks, hence no need for the newletter.

-- posted by AL_W

Top 1487. Jun 1, 2002 2:19 PM

» ACousins - Re: Re: Dija the Liar hits, runs and hides again!

In response to message posted by dija:

Whoa! These brinker bashers really get down and dirty when they know they are losing the debate!

I keep providing you with facts and you keep dodging the question while LYING about what others here have said.

What about the connection between CTRs and CBs? I've asked repeatedly about that and you have FAILED to answer. Stop lying Dija, it hurts your credibility LOL.

-- posted by ACousins

Top 1488. Jun 1, 2002 3:07 PM

» walkerman - Re: Ouch!!! That's gotta hurt, Walkerman

In response to message posted by Felipe:
Felipe.....how stupid is your post. A man is riding his bike in the middle of a wilderness, with no one around for miles. He is a lone bike rider in the wilderness. Is he the only man riding a bike in a wilderness anywhere else in the world? Not likely. All of you basherbots trying to support Kirk's unsupportable position are just airing your ignorance for all to see.

-- posted by walkerman

Top 1489. Jun 1, 2002 3:18 PM

» Will_L - Re: Re: Ouch!!! That's gotta hurt, Walkerman

In response to message posted by walkerman:

Nice to see you quibble about the small stuff walkerman, perhaps now you'll answer "THE BIG QUESTION"
Now Walkietalkie, please answer that question you've been under that rock hiding from.

You claimed that Brinker includes all the information about his stock picks in the newsletter. You claimed that you were more intelligent than AC and knew just where to find all that information about his stock picks. You even mentioned UTEK, THE LAST AND ONLY STOCK BRINKER RATED as a BUY in the late 90's. NOw Walkerman, on what page and in which issue of Marketimer did BRINKER DISCLOSE THAT HE WAS GETTING PAID IN AN UNDISCLOSED MANNER BY UTEK, THE ONLY COMPANY HE HAD AS A BUY?.

Now go back under your rock if you can't address the question. You only make your boy look dishnonest and slimey like....well, like you.

-- posted by Will_L

Top 1490. Jun 1, 2002 3:55 PM

» Felipe - Walkerman's a glutton for punishment

.
Class, now pay attention...Kirk, stop pulling Della’s ponytail and pay attention…it’s time for our extra credit question of the day. Please...I'm only going to ask this once. For 15 extra points, please give an example of "pulling a Walkerman." Hint: see the most recent post by Walkerman, above.

By way of review, pulling a Walkerman is a childish strategy whereby someone who is losing an argument attempts to change the topic being discussed – sometimes a little as in using poor analogies, sometimes a lot as in discussing the definition of words like "a" and "the," which he also misunderstands. All of this is done in a futile attempt to avoid being recognized as having a flawed argument, or to avoid saying "I was wrong."

"Pulling a Walkerman" is similar to, but not the same as, "Flinging a Walkerman." Flinging a Walkerman refers to the tendency of a person losing the argument (usually Walkerman, thus the name) to throw spurious information into the discussion, presenting fictional ideas as fact, as in Walkerman's bogus reference to the derivation of "toeing the line," an expression that first appeared in English writings circa early 18th Century and refers to sailors lining up on the deck of their ship for inspection. Note that this usage predates Walkerman's spurious reference to baseball, which didn’t exist in the early 18th Century.

Neither of these should be confused with "Telling a Walkerman," which is the act of telling gratuitous lies. It is usually followed shortly thereafter by "Cowering like a Walkerman," which refers to ducking a question after being caught in the lie. See Will's post, above, for a good example of this.

_______________________________________________

I gotta stop this. I'm feeling guilty – it's like playing basketball against the world’s shortest pygmy.

-- posted by Felipe

Top 1491. Jun 1, 2002 6:13 PM

» dija - Re: Re: Re: Precision

In response to message posted by JIMMY62:

Jimmy62 said: "The CTR was based on the auxiliary timing model...use of the auxiliary timing model resulted in Bob writing, 'we were wrong'...

"I have not heard about the auxiliary timing model since."

Jimmy, I TOLD AC long ago, that BB would never again attempt a CTR. It was an experiment that failed.

-- posted by dija