I wrote something similar, but I notice that you have "sliced and diced" it.
Some corrections:
The first post you quoted contained no boldface in the original. (Yahoo does not have that feature.) It is conventional, in publishing, to include the note "[emphasis added]" in that situation. The post went on to say
"What does constitute timing, in my mind, is that he had to make a decision every month on whether to stay bullish or not, and he made that decision correctly every month for at least ten years. Unlike the bernardo, I believe he deserves credit for that."
It's interesting that you omitted the one part of the post that was favorable to Brinker.
The "comments" that you quoted were not comments at all, but samples of language from old issues of the newsletter, since dija was suggesting that I was misinterpreting it somehow.
With regard to the material you added relative to the June 8, 2004 buy level of below 1100, I remember at least one time in the past when he took credit for a buy level being triggered on an intraday basis, because one could have gotten that price through an ETF, and I don't recall seeing language in the newsletter that would prevent buying in that manner, so if the market goes on to new highs, I wouldn't be surprised if he claims credit for the 1100 buy point. Of course, with TA enthusiasts Justa and ajtj finding reasons to expect new lows before then, that may become a moot point.
Although I cited the predominance of mutual funds in Brinker's portfolios as my reason for using closing prices, on reflection I realize that a bigger reason I didn't look up the intraday prices was that it would have been time-consuming, and it looked like it would have been unlikely to change the overall picture significantly, if at all.
For completeness, I will add the following post from the same exchange: ___________________
"Plus, you didn't answer my question. Can you name even ONE individual who was bullish from 1993 through 1999, bearish from 2000 through 2002, and bullish again from March 2003 until now?"
I didn't answer your question because I agree with your point that Brinker deserves credit for remaining correctly bullish during the '90s, while many others jumped ship at various points, and I agree that this constituted correct market timing. The only point I disagree with is that the identification of lump sum buy levels constituted timing in and of itself, because the fact is that, from the time I subscribed in 1996 until his model turned unfavorable in 2000, he published buy levels in nearly every issue of the newsletter. The best one can say is that those buy levels reinforced his timing, because as you correctly pointed out, they probably helped subscribers stay the course during periods of great fear.
Incidentally, I see that Brinker's below-1100 target got triggered yesterday, at least on an intraday basis.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
