The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Politics & Current Events / Retire Early CampFIRE


Subject:  Re: non-MasterMind will RE Date:  8/11/2002  2:18 PM
Author:  hocus Number:  73510 of 881732

If pretty much everyone who cares to post in the thread thinks it's looney, then either the author is doing a very poor job of saying what he intends, or it's probably looney.


If I understand properly, you are saying here is that it should not be intercst the board founder who decides what views are loony and are to be ridiculed, but a concensus of the board. I don't believe that you and I are in agreement on the merits of the Safe Withdrawal Rate study, but I think that we are largely in agreement on this process issue.

My belief is that ridicule is appropriate on a public message board only in the rarest of circumstances. If someone tries to make a point, and does not succeed in convincing too many peope, I don't see that there's a need for ridicule of the poster. I can see a possible exception to the general rule, hwever, where someone is posting irrespnsible positions and doing so in a continuous, ongoing, disruptive basis.

Is that what we have in regard to the debate re Safe Withdrawal Rates? The opening post to the "Coin Toss" post, in which I laid out my argument against the Safe Withdrawal Rate study, received over 80 recs. Does that level of support mean for you that the argument has achieved non-loony status, that the idea that the study does not do what it purports to do is no longer to be subject to ridicule on the board? I'm asking a genuine question here.

What I see as the problem with the procedural guideline you put forward here is that it's possible for a consensus of the board to have more than a single opinion on a single issue. I don't believe that there is one other poster on the board with my exacts views on the Safe Withdrawal Rate study. But there seem to be quite a few who share one or two thoughts that I have put forward somewhere in the course of the debate or who at least like to hear those views communicated so that they can think the question over a bit for themselves.

For intercst and some others, my criticisms of the study are clearly in the loony-and-therefore-to-be-Ridiculed category. I believe that, while I may not have fully persuaded anyone yet, I have made a strong enough case so that the big red "R" that is stamped on each discussion I try to have on the subject should be removed at this point. The board consensus at this point is strong support for the study but a measure of support for the idea of discussing its drawbacks as well.

As someone who I believe is a strong supporter of the study, it would be a big help in my effort to get this debate out of the "to be ridiculed" category if you were to come forward and say that, while you personally think the study is just fine, you also believe that sufficiently substantial criticisms have been put forward at this point that board leaders should cease treating this particular topic as one in the "to be Ridiculed" category.

Any chance that you could offer me some help in that regard?

Copyright 1996-2019 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us