Is he a sponsor? Was he in the past? CNBC's 'in Cramer we Trust' is more credible than Jack Hershey's methods which says a lot...
Your confusion comes from your orientation. ET has two groups A people and B people. B people keep A people's threads on the home page and within the top 5 of the forum lists. A people's posts keep ET in business by affording the sponsors more hits in the arenas in which the sponsors vend. We, with Spydertrader on point, do not vend. Our orientation is to help those who work to learn and to help those who, locally, are helping others to learn and who are contributing time and money to solve local problems. This is termed as paying it fprward or passing it forward. Google movie to learn about this concept. Credibility is a judgement call. We find that there is a good corrolation between "judgements" and "ability to work to learn". It is direct. In your case you judge negatively and, as you say in your posts, you do not work to learn, another negative. This is a beautiful filter for A people who are contributing to the betterment of others. In your case, you are a B person who is also a thread starter. this thread, for A people will be convenient. A people do a lot of ignoring. They arrive, read and exercise ignore. B people will keep your commentary on how ET works well oiled. I have scheduled and subsequently declined to be a guest of CNBC and this was not in any way connected to Cramer. There is no overlap in thinking among Cramer, me and users of the pool extraction algorithm. We do pool extraction of the market's offer in a neutral bias orientation. Cramer has a long bias, apparently, and so do his entertainment viewers, listeners and colleagues.
Did CNBC try to interfere with your booksignings at Camp David? Perhaps a higher dose of Risperdal would help with that.