I received a comment from your producer Dave, asking me to participate on your show tonight, on my blog. I accepted, however it must of been too late, as I posted a response, and your producer had already left for the day, when I called. I normally write at night, or in the morning, and then I leave this blog alone, because unlike corporate America, I'm not tied to a Blackberry, and I refuse to have emails or posts sent to my phone. I check electronic mail, the same way I check postal mail.
When I get home.
Forgive me for that.
I saw you on your show tonight on CNBC, where supposedly these "bloggers" feared to be on your show. I, however, do not share that trait. Do you really think I fear easily?
In fact, you could say that this blog answers to a higher calling. But could you take a response from someone that says this? Or this? Or this? Even though it was 100% prescient?
Could you handle a person who had this response to the Madoff ponzi scheme?
Could you handle someone who has this take on Shakespeare? Or Superman? Or the Mona Lisa? Or this version of Wall Street truth? It's written, so that the nuances can't be detected, even with an earpiece, two teleprompters or five handlers. You need to know, to know what it means, and what it reads, is not what it says!
But on the market, I am crystal clear. Oil, bonds and stocks. Isn't that what CNBC viewers trade?
So I ask you:
Did anyone at CNBC say to sell every one of your bonds on January 1, at the exact top for a New Year's resolution? How clear was that?
Did anyone on CNBC tell you to buy oil, when your CNBC guest on 12/19/2008 said it would go to $17.85?
Or give you the play at the exact bottom in crude with the shortsale of double short crude ETF? It was only 155 points in just over two months!
Or cleary explain Goldman's oil position posturing?
I didn't see that on CNBC.
But you saw it here.
You had the bottom of the stock market at 666, the day it happened. You only had four 300% winners, and three 200% winners from that post alone.
I didn't see that on CNBC. But you saw it here.
And for emphasis, another 666 "Number of the Beast" post the next day after the market bottom. Even though it was 100% accurate, and 100% prescient, could you really handle the leprosy argument, or the evisceration of the bears sacred leaders?
That call would of made someone's year. I didn't see it on CNBC. But you saw it here.
And another on March 11. Heaven help you if you read it--I said "Lazarus come forth!"
Or this response to "wet brain" three days after the bottom in the market?
Has anyone on the history of CNBC ever had three week results that looked like this?
Or two 400% plays in three days?
Did anyone at CNBC call the second leg up on this market, after the first consolidation at S&P 830 on this market the day it happened? With a stool check?
Did we see anything remotely like that on CNBC? But you had it. Here.
Too many posts to read? Here's one--To the day. I'll make it easy.
Now I talk fast, and think quicker, so I blog so I'm not misunderstood. However, I still have that faulty genetic trait, that also befalls those that make the news, or report on it.
Publicity is good.
So I'm interested, to spar with you, even though we are more likely on the same page, despite the sh*t I gave you the other day.
And I commend you for doing a good job disposing of the blogger on your show tonight. I'd expect no less from Gator Nation.
But why don't you take on a real fight?
Comment me, Dave or Dennis, and I'll call you.
Or I'll call your television blogger bluff!
And if you don't, I'd still buy you a beer at the Swamp.
Because I've been in the real ones up in 'Nole country, and I prefer playing at home!