Replies to post #47 on Bob Brinker Forum

[honeyandroses]

You are correct, Kirk. I have indeed invited Math Junkie to post at Honey's Brinker Beehive-Buzz--just as I have invited anyone to post there whether they agree or disagree with what is posted there.

Unlike many Brinker forums of the past, such as those hosted by Justa and Lars, I am willing to respectfully let the "opposition" have their say. All I ask is that everyone stay on topic and that Suite 101 TOS rules be observed.

As I said over at the site where Math Junkie posted a link to this site this morning, defending Bob Brinker's cover-ups and distortions of his true record is "mission impossible." Even Math Junkie admits that Brinker's (ongoing) QQQQ-trade cover-up is not right.

[Math Junkie]

"I DO CARE that you complain 'They don't post my side of the story' then when you are invited to 'post your side of the story' you refuse."

First of all, my side of the story is already posted on the Yahoo UTEK thread. Why should I waste my time copying it all over to Honey's board?

Secondly, I'm sorry if it upsets you, but the fact is that I don't like the way you run your boards, and I'm not obligated to come over there and help you improve them as a condition of expressing my opinion of them.

Would Brinker be justified in telling you that you shouldn't criticize his investment letter unless you were willing to help him write it?

"Perhaps the reason the forum is 'unbalanced' is nobody can defend Brinker reporting his results without including the QQQQ advice?"

It's much worse than unbalanced. Honey's board is one-sided, because she copies pages and pages of posts from a dedicated anti-Brinker propagandist on the Yahoo UTEK thread, without letting people see the arguments that are posted on the other side. It's like listening to one side of a phone conversation.

(For those who are interested, both sides of these arguments can be found at http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=topics&board=4687942&sid=4687942&type=r )

BTW, I agree with you about the reporting of QQQQ results.

"For the record here, do you think Bob Brinker honestly reports his investment record?"

I think that completely excluding the results of the QQQQ advice, and failing to list TEFQX in the newsletter in spite of its still being on hold, are dishonest. Other than that, I haven't seen evidence of a problem.

"How would YOU report his investment record?"

As Honey graciously pointed out, I already covered this in post #23 here.

"FWIW, I don't own Suite101... so it is NOT my site. I moderate one of over 200 topics there, a topic I have some passion for."

Good point. I don't have any beef with the portions of it that are not subject to your control.