The mail response is inevitable when a talking head warns against buying individual stocks: You don't know what you're talking about, because I beat the market.

Over the past few weeks, we've had a few guests who basically told investors to give up picking stocks. Columnist Jane Bryant Quinn was the latest to chime in on the March 7 broadcast: "People don't know about individual stocks," Quinn told Karen Gibbs. "They take other peoples' word. ... These are just errors."

It's not the kind of message people want to hear. And whenever we put on a Jane Bryant Quinn or Gary Gensler warning individuals to stay away from stock picking, there are always a few respondents who beg to differ.

For instance, this weekend's mail included a message from a Thomas Lembessis, who describes himself as a retired financial analyst formerly of Met Life's group pensions unit:

"Your segment with Jane Bryant Quinn was disappointing. I trade stocks and options online -- not a day trader, but I am rarely in a position for longer than 2 days. I disagree with Jane's statement that mutual funds are a better place for individual investors. ... My portfolio is up better than 30 percent these past six months. Sorry, Ms. Quinn, you do the talking, I'll do the picking."

And one anonymous viewer apparently considers it heresy for a financial program to suggest that stocks aren't necessarily the best investment all the time:

"What's in a name? For instance, look at the name of your show: Wall $treet Week with FORTUNE. Just what is found on Wall Street? Stock exchanges, right? Who do you suppose tunes into the show? Voila, viewers with an interest in stocks, perhaps? Comprende?

"Viewers who own stocks must feel the program last Friday did not want to support the concept of owning shares in corporate America, such as they currently own. Was this show helpful to these viewers' vision of the economic future? Was the show fostering demand for shares they might own? Are they learning anything additional about the industries or companies of stocks they own? It is very, very doubtful.

"What in the Sam Hill are you people thinking? Serve your viewers' needs, such as analysis and insight into investing opportunities in public companies, and economics. Have some guts to make some stock picking calls, or invite more guests on who will make stock picking calls, with time enough to back up their assertions."

Lembessis and our unnamed writer have plenty of company in their opinions, otherwise discount brokers wouldn't be in business. Stocks are more than investments for these swashbuckling stockholders, for whom trading companies' shares is dogma, ideology and a "vision of the economic future." In their view, it's By-God-UnAmerican to tell people to put their money into anything but stocks. Give me stock picks. Now.

There a few problems with that viewpoint, but here's the biggest one: It overlooks performance. Economics is called the dismal science, and it's an apt description for the results of most stock pickers. Research indicates individual investors are generally bad at picking stocks. For that matter, so are most pros -- the vast majority of actively-managed funds have underperformed the markets historically.

There are exceptions, a few of whom have appeared on Wall $treet Week with FORTUNE. The Quantum Fund of George Soros averaged a gain of 31 percent annually from 1969 to 2000 (although Soros did it mostly through trading currencies, not stocks). Jean-Marie Eveillard's First Eagle Global has outperformed its main international benchmark, Morgan Stanley Capital International's EAFE Index, for most of the past 23 years, except for the mid- and late-'90s.

If you consistently outpace the market by picking stocks and trading options, then accept our congratulations as well, but don't assume your experience is typical. It's not -- that's why there are "averages" in the first place. Jane Bryant Quinn isn't being deceptive or disingenuous when she tells people to avoid individual stocks; she's merely playing the percentages. Index funds keep you in stocks at low cost while ensuring you won't underperform the broad market, and highly-rated bonds provide steady money with relatively low risk.

(Some observers would take issue with that last sentence, largely because of inflation, which reduces the true return from bonds. But the same is true of many stocks; the Dow Jones Industrial Average, on an inflation-adjusted basis, took about 60 years to regain its 1929 levels.)

Investing is neither religion, nor moral foundation. It's not a particularly noble or profound endeavor, and telling people to avoid individual stocks isn't an attack on the American way of life. Investing is amoral -- the majority of investors buy financial assets solely to make money, and there are times when stocks haven't been the best way to do that.

If you insist on viewing investing in terms of supporting capitalism and the American economy, you still must go beyond stocks.

"Just what is found on Wall Street exchanges?" So glad you asked. U.S. bonds comprise the world's largest securities market, with America's private and public debt last year totaling about $20.2 trillion. That's more than double the value of the U.S. stock market, currently at about 100 percent of GDP, which was $9.5 trillion at the end of December.

Given that size disparity, maybe the better question isn't "Why talk about bonds?" but "Why aren't you talking about bonds more?"

Of course, stocks are generally seen as more intriguing than bonds. Many financial advisers, while putting their clients mostly in index funds and other conservative vehicles, also tell them to keep a small pool of money to trade on their own, as a way of staying interested in the markets and investing. An unscientific poll on this Web site last month indicated that many people buy individual stocks mainly for fun.

There's nothing wrong with investing-as-entertainment -- to a point. It's okay to enjoy yourself, as long as you don't destroy your capital base. The very thing that makes stocks interesting -- volatile prices -- also adds to their risk. Passive funds and fixed income instruments are simply a way to protect yourself. And there's nothing wrong with that either.

Unrelated but nevertheless interesting articles:

» Whipsawed by Wall Street, Business Week. Is buy-and-hold investing dead? Probably not, but the thesis makes for a good argument.

» Brokerage Firm Turns Off CNBC , The New York Times. In this week's Department of Childish Responses, Merrill Lynch brokers' TV has been switched to Bloomberg because of anger over how CNBC commentators Kudlow & Cramer criticize Merrill executives. Generally speaking, screaming op-ed TV is annoying by its very nature, but there's also something to be said for having a thick skin. Why not give brokers a choice of what to watch?

» Selig opposes Wrigley Field as landmark, Chicago Tribune. Baseball's commissioner, perhaps feeling withdrawal pangs from not having made any weird public statements in a few months, now says doesn't want the most beloved ballpark in America designated as a historic landmark so that the Tribune Co. can retain the ability to build luxury boxes, a retractable roof and other "amenities" guaranteed to destroy Wrigley's old-fashioned charm. Yup, keeping out the rain and putting in high-tech food kiosks will turn the Cubs into a winner, sure...

» Key to France, Russia Position on Iraq: Cash, Los Angeles Times. The real agenda behind French and Russian opposition to Iraqi war has been noted by others before, but it's still worth reading Jim Flanigan's summary of the financial positions driving Paris and Moscow.

» Nat Semi drama unfolds, San Jose Mercury News. Activist investor Ralph Whitworth, who appeared on Wall $treet Week with FORTUNE almost eight months ago, is taking on communications chip specialist National Semiconductor. Individuals can't buy into Whitworth's fund, but given his record of success at turning around companies, National could be fun to follow over the next few quarters.

-- Sergio G. Non is the online editor of Wall $treet Week with FORTUNE.