CLOSED Bob_Brinker_Discussion Site 43,700 Use New Thread!

Top 1317. Jul 7, 2002 6:19 PM

» dija - Re: Re: Bob/Moabo Confusion

In response to message posted by Will_L:

Good post, Will. It absolutely PROVES my contention! EVERY SINGLE WORD in that post is designed to make Brinker look as bad as it is humanly possible to make him look! There is absolutely NO CONCESSION to fairness or balance. It is total spin. Total innuendo. Total BS, with some grains of truth.

Propaganda personified.

Will, you missed your calling. You should have been a journalist for the Washington Post.

I only wish that people like Kirk, Jimmy 62, Jeff Christy and David K. would occasionally criticize you for posts like that. But they will remain silent. Even though they know that what I say is true.

-- posted by dija

Top 1318. Jul 7, 2002 6:23 PM

» Will_L - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: to jonathon

In response to message posted by dija:

Dija, you remind me of a lawyer for Enron. The senate committee investigating Enron released a scathing report that detailed Enron's misdeeds and the terrible job by its board of directors. Enron's lawyer did not argue with any of their points but instead used a broad brush to demonize the committee and say that they had a vendetta yada yada yada.

You are the same when it comes to Brinker. You accuse me of all kinds of things, and tell others how decietful I am as a way of trying to limit the effect of the truth about your Master, Brinker.

Why don't you stick to the facts instead of characterizing anything I say in such broad terms. If you object to something, prove where I am wrong, just as I did you when you categorically denied that you lied when you said that I had made up the fact that Richard Palm said he was 100% certain Bob Brinker was posting as Don Lane--who in turn touted UTEK to the hilt why Brinker was being paid in an undisclosed relationship with the company.

Instead of like the lawyer for enron--argue the facts and what I say instead of your whining and bitching about me. Like Enron's lawyer, I doubt you can find anything of substance to argue about. When your client is guilty as charged you attack the truth tellers.

-- posted by Will_L

Top 1319. Jul 7, 2002 6:25 PM

» dija - to jonathon

Jonathon, why don't you answer my question??!!!!

What would be wrong with making a sideways move from the QQQs, which, in you own words, have "crap stocks," into a mutual fund with no crap stocks?

Don't you think you are capable of picking a tech-oriented mutual fund that will outperform the QQQs over the next 3 to 5 years?

If you thought the stocks in the QQQs were good stocks, I could understand you holding them.

But you are the one who said they are "crap stocks."

I do not understand why anyone would purposely hold onto stocks that he considered "crap."

-- posted by dija

Top 1320. Jul 7, 2002 6:34 PM

» Will_L - Re: Re: Re: Bob/Moabo Confusion

In response to message posted by dija:

So then Dija, why don't you tell us about the guy who's name is on the thread.

Tell me why Moabo was something the model was going to identify and then it was "not about finding a bottom". He told a caller that he never claimed that his re-entry would be even a "great buying opportunity". I didn't make that up--Brinker did.

He then stopped talking about MOABO for a year.

He began talking about 'EBO' a few weeks ago. Then yesterday after I pointed out all week that he had deceptively buried that MOABO crap, he brought it back up. And what else Dija, a new acronym-- VEBO "VERY EXTRAORDINARY BUYING OPPORTUNITY.

Now what would you call a grown man on the radio with an ad for himself every 2o minutes telling people that he would be calling the "MOTHER OF ALL BUYING OPPORTUNITIES" and if not the "VERY EXTRAORDINARY BUYING OPPORTUNITY" in his next COUNTER TREND EVENT CALL.

Explain the difference between MOABO and VEBO Dija.

Explain why BRinker's model that looks out a few months he claims is now about finding a bottom of a COUNTER TREND EVENT that will last 1 to 3 years and then fail. This COUNTER TREND EVENT will be huge he claims.

What is different than his last marketing ploy for MOABO?

Why differentiate such crap as VEBO and MOABO??

Isn't that a rather sophmoric and obvious marketing ploy?

How did his last Counter trend event start out? EBO, VEBO, MOABO?

When has he called a Counter trend event that fits anything other than CRAPO?

Now instead of whining about not liking what I say--argue the facts and the conclusions a sane person would come to regarding Brinker's latest yammering.

-- posted by Will_L

Top 1321. Jul 7, 2002 7:04 PM

» ACousins - Re: to jonathon

In response to message posted by dija:

I do not understand why anyone would purposely hold onto stocks that he considered "crap."

Bingo, that's the truth about Bob. He did not buy the QQQs for a longterm buy and hold as he said the market was going lower. Yet he STILL HOLDS those stocks. Why does he do that?

Answer that one Dija.

-- posted by ACousins

Top 1322. Jul 7, 2002 9:24 PM

» dija - Re: Re: Re: Re: Bob/Moabo Confusion

In response to message posted by Will_L:

Will, I already gave my opinion of the MOABO prediction in post #1296.

I have given my opinion of the CTR-CB differences many times. Obviously, you have to disagree. You CANNOT agree, because if you do that, you will be violating your personal pledge to ALWAYS try to make Brinker look as bad as you possibly can.

I suspect you know I am right, but you are not interested in conceding points, like rational people do in a debate, and like I often do with you.

You accuse people like me, Walkerman and La la of having agendas. But YOU, Will, are the one with the agenda. And your agenda is to make Brinker look as bad as you possibly can.

-- posted by dija

Top 1323. Jul 7, 2002 9:31 PM

» dija - Re: Re: to jonathon

In response to message posted by ACousins:

AC said: "...He did not buy the QQQs for a long term buy and hold as he said the market was going lower. Yet he STILL HOLDS those stocks. Why does he do that? Answer that one Dija."

AC, I have no idea why he is holding those stocks. As you know, I think it's stupid to hold them. I sold mine long ago.

In my humble opinion, there is no RATIONAL reason to hold them. So, I have to conclude that Brinker and Jonathon are both acting irrationally.

I suspect it has something to do with Brinker's ego. But there is no way to know for sure.

I'm sure glad he always encouraged me to become my own personal financial advisor. The mutual fund I replaced the QQQs with is not exactly making me rich, but it is beating the hell out of the QQQs!!

-- posted by dija

Top 1324. Jul 7, 2002 9:43 PM

» BillBowden - Re: Re: to jonathon

In response to message posted by ACousins:

"Why does he do that?"

Probably because he thinks it's better to hold a losing position than risk selling at the bottom and moving into another losing position. One terribly bad call is better than a bunch of little bad calls.

But Brinker said something Saturday that was rather confusing. He mentioned that some investment advisors believed they could beat the market by holding only the best stocks. He then followed it up with the fact that the market factors all existing data into the price of the stock which removes any advantage of owning only the best stocks. Then he goes on today about moabo which leads you to believe he knows something that the market doesn't, and therefore not all the data is factored into the price since the price will be below what it is worth. This seems contradictory to what he said yesterday.

Very confusing.

-- posted by BillBowden

Top 1325. Jul 7, 2002 10:12 PM

» Kirk - Re: Re: Re: to jonathon

In response to message posted by BillBowden:

This is a perfect example of the difficulty of giving honest advice then selling a fortune telling service.

Speaking of knowledge priced into a stock... WCOM and T are nearly in the same business and were selling at about the same price then WCOM fell 90% in a matter of weeks. The "news" of the accounting issues were not made public until the stock was under $1. Doesn't that tell you Brinker is wrong? That much movement in stock price is on insider info either of analyst upgrades and downgrade knowldege before the fact or true insider information leaking out?

-- posted by Kirk