...I responded only to the content of the articles ...<snip>...Therefore, there was no need for you to respond to me, personally, at all.



Well, I promised you could have the last word, kelbon, but the sentences above takes the cake!

Well, let's see some of your "content", kelbon:

"...which leads one to think that he does think dividend investors are low on the food chain — either that, or he's a bi-polar twit-brain."

"...If paying a tax on money coming your way is something to dislike then perhaps the Tea Party, or worse, is in your future."

"...OK, this is as idiotic ..."

"...Which leads me to deduce that TMFMurph might actually be Mr. Van Knapp. Or, at least, collecting a fee for disseminating his missives, perhaps $0.001 a hit?

OK, don't get bent out of shape, just kidding ;)

I love the author picture; the visual pun, he's climbing out of his hammock after a knapp. (don't click on the link! He'll get another $0.01 just for you to look at him climbing out of his hammock)."

"... Given this, I would think that as "Home Fool" it would behoove you to be looking out for them!"


You and I have had this argument on other boards, kelbon, and my position is simply this:

You are a VERY bright Fool, with lots to offer...but, IMHO, your "style" leaves something to be desired.

It's OK to disagree, point out flaws, bring new facts to light, etc. It is NOT OK to denigrate/character assassinate/call names/make fun of.

Here is a post by a pretty smart Fool, that makes a point you may find useful:

http://boards.fool.com/pknudsen-yeah-bad-habits-of-mine-i-te...



If you don't like my tone, or what I have to contribute, put me on ignore."

Naw, kelbon...way too easy. ;-)

Cheers!
Murph
Imperfect Home Fool