His ideas ARE gaining traction on REHP
His ides ARE NOT gaining traction on REHP
Click here to see results so far.
Click here to see results so far.
Not that it matters too much, but the results so far speak for themselves. Remember, think subliminally!
The results so far speak for themselvesNot really, Galeno.How do you explain 80-plus "votes" for hearing the hocus view in two separate posts put up during the Great Debate. ? The "Coin Toss" post was the 57th most popular post in the history of this board, with over 83,000 posts and counting. The "My Plan" post is not far behind.I think that the problem here is that the people who use the board to learn are sickened by the way that people have poisoned each thread on this issue with nonsense, disruption, deception, and personal attacks. How about instead of a poll to test the community's views, we allow one non-disrupted thread per month on this subject.?Then the ideas either catch on on their own merits or, the threads die out for lack of interest. Given the confidence you have in the results of the poll, I would think you would have no concern that anyone would even participate in those threads.Do I have your endorsement for this idea?Or is this all just false bravado?
heaven of the comets under the stars asks:Then the ideas either catch on on their own merits or, the threads die out for lack of interest. Given the confidence you have in the results of the poll, I would think you would have no concern that anyone would even participate in those threads.Do I have your endorsement for this idea?Why did you stop your meds?
I honestly haven't read any hocus ideas since his return to REHP. As before he spins post after post talking around the issue and talking about what he plans to talk about.If he would just post what he wants to say it would be much easier to either ignore, argue or validate.
Hocus writes,Not really, Galeno.How do you explain 80-plus "votes" for hearing the hocus view in two separate posts put up during the Great Debate. ? The "Coin Toss" post was the 57th most popular post in the history of this board, with over 83,000 posts and counting. The "My Plan" post is not far behind.You're forgetting Hocus, that's before we knew that you were certifiable. Most people back then would just look at one of your posts and think to themselves, "Boy, that sure is alot of words, this guys obviously knows what he's talking about, better give em' a rec..."For a guy who claims not to have alot of time, you seem to follow your own posts and their recs alot. This should scream to everyone, NEVER rec another Hocus post again! It validates EVERYTHING in his mind. Golfwaymore
Hocus,As of this writing, 31 people voted in the poll. 27 voted that your ideas ARE NOT getting traction at REHP. 4 people voted that your ideas ARE getting traction at REHP. http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=18177298If you mean to imply that prior to this poll, that only 3 people had interest in your ideas, well, then I guess you're getting traction. <grin>However, based on the post where you used the names of 16 people in vain by claiming they see it "your way", then it appears obvious to everyone but you that your ideas, if anything, are LOSING traction. Golfwaymore
Golfwaymore wrote:However, based on the post where you used the names of 16 people in vain by claiming they see it "your way", then it appears obvious to everyone but you that your ideas, if anything, are LOSING traction.I was not able to answer that poll.I think that it is REHP that is LOSING traction with readers.Fool On.John R.
If he would just post what he wants to say it would be much easier to either ignore, argue or validate. There is no one particular magical thing I want to say, ToddTruby. This is a discussion board, not a posting board. I don't want to say something to the scores of people interested in the critical issue I brought to the board's attention. I've already said something on it, no one was able to stop me from doing so, and that part of this business has come to a close.The usual next step is to discuss what has been said. That's were I obtain value from posting here, through the experience of modifying my inttial impressions as the result of feedback obtained from interaction with the community of people congregated here.It is in the discussion stage that posts offering only disruption, deception, ridicule, and personal attacks cause me a problem. Lots of people who visit this place have many times expressed how sickened they are by those sorts of posts. It makes them feel dirty to have to work for their way through that sort of stuff, for one thing. It wastes their time, for another.Intercst likes that sort of stuff. He has posted pleas to the board never to fool alert any posts, including those putting forward threats of physical violence, because he enjoys the "witty repartee" he finds in them. His desire for this sort of witty repartee is not permitted realization on these boards under the published TMF posting rules.I am asking that intercst restrain his desire for witty repartee in the interests of the board community's need to learn more about this important subject matter. In the event that he is unable to see the need to do so on his own, I have asked that responsible community members come forward and insist publicly that he do so. I think that any of us who has gained from participation on this board owes the community that much, however difficult a task it may appear to be to work up the courage to take that step.I had to work up the courage to do it, and it took me a long time. So I am sympathetic to the reasons why people are finding it hard to do. But this community has such potential that I think it is an incredible waste to let it all fall to ruin without at least taking a stab at seeing whether things can be put back on track. I don't say that the chances of succcess here are good, but, ever since hearing that Jefferson Starship song, I really do believe in miracles.
You're forgetting Hocus, that's before we knew that you were certifiable. Well, yes, that's sort of the point here, isn't it?Declare a ridicule campaign against a poster who is asking questions you do not want to have the board make sense of, get as many of your friends to partcipate as possible, make a large number of outrageous statements about the poster in question, and in time some of it is going to stick, isn't it?It doesn't have to be true to stick, not if the issue is complicated enough that many of the people in the community don't have time to examine all the ins and outs closely, and especially if they feel affection for you because of the good you have done in the past and if you have special credibility on the subject matter in question because of a study you prepared in regard to it. You don't have to be right, you just have to repeat the message that the poster is "certifiable" over and over and over again, and say it in a grand authoritative tone that most human beings never employ except in cases where they are really sure, and a good number of people will begin to think that there must be some grain of truth in what you are saying.Deception is a sickness on a discussion board. It kills debate. Because once the people posting make it a practice to engage in deception, it becomes hard for the people reading to know anymore what to trust. Most people on this board at this point have no idea what to think about safe withdrawal rates because there have been so many false things stated in such grand authoritative tones that, the more time we spend on it, the less we know.That's not the way it is supposed to work. We are supposed to be engaged in the act of learning together. The obstacle in our path is a Board General who so enjoys the fruits of deception, disruption, attack, and ridicule that he cannot stop himself even when he is driving the discussion board he created over a cliff.If our Board General in unable to restrain his negative inclinations to the extent necessary to permit this board to realize the purposes which Motley Fool says it is to pursue, our Board General needs to turn his attentions to discussion boards where different sorts of posting rules prevail. He had one on his web site before he moved it to Motley Fool. Presumably, he read the Motley Fool posting rules before he made the switch, so he knew the limitations he was placing on himself by doing so.He needs either to come to terms with those limitations and return to making a positive contribution to the community's business or to find a community where his style of posting is considered acceptable. We can wish that he would elect one or the other of the two options, and we can ask him to elect the one we think best. I've done that several times. But ultimately it is his decision as to how to proceed.
Galeno,Never wake a sleeping hocus!2828
4 people voted that your ideas ARE getting traction at REHP.If this means that things have reached such a state that there are only four souls remaining in this community who care to learn what it takes to put together an effective plan for early retirement, that saddens me, GolfWayMore. Still, let's remember that on the day that intercst formed the board, it probably wasn't too much more than that. That which has been torn asunder can be rebuilt if people of good will direct their energies to that enterprise.I think it's worth a try. I've gained a lot from the board in the past, and I believe that I can gain a lot in the future. So long as there is one soul voting for a board that serves the purpose Motley Fool intends, I am willing to do what I can to see that that soul obtains his or her $30 worth of value.I hope you will be helping me in the rebuiding effort in the days to come, GolfWayMore You have made many valuable contributions. If I recall correctly, there was a brief time when I was listed as one of your favorite fools (I am not sure about this), so perhaps you once thought that I had something of value to offer as well. Let's work together, and see if a year from now we can bring this site back to the heights it reached in its heyday. Just taking the step of deciding that that's we are going to begin to do turns everything around, I believe. Once you are involved in something constructive rather than destructive, it fills you with energy and optimism. This board needs more of both than it has enjoyed in recent months, according to my perception of things.
Never wake a sleeping hocus!2828:One of the problems I faced regularly during the Great Debate was that I kept trying to find a way to disengage (because I was so far behind on other committments) and the board just wouldn't let me. There was question after question after question.I know that the board says that it hates this discussion, but there is some undercurrent of desire that causes it to want it to never stop. I think people just have a hard time allowing the sorts of things I am saying to remain up on the board unchallenged. It makes the board look so bad, and people recall the days that we had so much to be proud of re our particpation here, that they just can't accept it that words can appear on the board from a long-time constructive poster making these sorts of claims.Most don't want to do what it would take to respond to the claims constructively (for reasons I understand). What most want is for me to stop giving voice to my concerns. When they don't get that, their second best solution is to post some sort of answer to the concerns posted that they hope will make them look not so bad. The problem with this strategy is that there is nothing that can be said anymore that will make them not look so bad.For awhile, I was on the run. So many people voiced agreement with the intercst assertion that I am "loony" that reasonable people were able to accept in their minds that at least on this one issue that might be sort of true. But the Bernstein quotes (which I didn't know about when the Great Debate began) killed that. It's just not believable that Bernstein too is "loony." Since the day that the "What Bernstein Says" thread went up, I indeed have gained traction. You don't see it polls that are taken, but you find a different tone to the posts offered against me. They were once full of confidence and bluster. Now they have a "please don't hit me" quality to them. From the day of that post, the gig was up.People on the other team are still playing out the nine innings, but they know that they are not going to win this one on points. Perhaps the game will get called on account of rain, that's the best they can hope for. They show up on the board and do their duty, but there's no life, no spark, because they can't convince themselves anymore that there's even a grain of truth to the positions they put forward. It embarrasses them to have to make claims that are beneath them, but they see it as their job to continue doing so at this point . It's a chore. The other side is not having much fun anymore.I'm not having much fun either. But I have the new board to look forward to. I have history on my side because the world outside this board is not going to stop caring about the truth on safe withdrawal rates just because it discomforts intercst to tell it. William Bernstein is not going to seek intercst's permission to publish his next book, so the word is going to get out about safe withdrawal rates whether intercst likes the idea or not.He may hold back the tide at this particular place of web real estate for a time. The board may become a Retire Early version of the Flat Earth society, where people pat each other on the back for their mutual wisdom in denying the truth that all others in the world who have taken a serious look at the question have come to accept. That game will be less and less fun the longer it continues. My game, a game that this board used to play of waking up each morning hoping to learn something new about this important and liberating subject, that's fun.I'll be playing that game again soon, in six month's time or so. I still have a small debt to pay here for the good this board has done me in the past. But that will soon join the mortgage on my home as a concern of the past. For me, posting been a drag for the past six months, but things are looking up. Those who took the low road had lots of laughs in the early going, and are now stuck riding a broken-down train into a tunnel of darkness.
Declare a ridicule campaign against a poster who is asking questions you do not want to have the board make sense of, get as many of your friends to partcipate as possible, make a large number of outrageous statements about the poster in question, and in time some of it is going to stick, isn't it?Two points: First, it's not that the Board doesn't want to make sense of your views, it's that the Board doesn't agree with your views, and there's a difference you don't seem to grasp; Second, whatever point you're trying to make, albeit wrong, gets lost in your excessive verbosity. As for there being some kind of campaign taking place on the Board, the only one I've seen is your campaign to force folks to agree with you, even when they've made it plain as can be that they don't agree with you.
the only one I've seen is your campaign to force folks to agree with you.My request of the board is a modest one, ResNullius I proposed in June that the group that intercst refers to as "Non-MasterMinds" be permitted one thread per month in which to exahnge views on a subject that they view as of critical importance to their efforts to craft effective retirement plans. I said that the MasterMinds could continue to exercise control over debate on the hundreds of other threads put up each month. Does that sound like the sort of proposal that someone trying to "force folks to agree" would come forward with?If you can't maintain support for the intercst study when you control 100 threads for each one in which I am permitted to post my thoughts without disruptions, deception, ridicule, and attack, then you don't have much of a position to defend. That's the core problem here. The investment claims that intercst has declared in his posts on the board are so overstated that they cannot survive any sort of reasoned scrutiny. Give me one non-disrupted thread per month, and his claims fail.It has nothing to do with wanting anyone to agree with me, ResNullius There are some on this board who would not agree with me if a flock of angels descended from the sky with a banner reading "Bernstein Got it Right!" So they don't agree, so what. They invest their way, I invest mine, and in 30 years we sort out who was right.The question is whether people should be permitted to discuss matters of critical importance to the board's mission. This is supposed to be a discussion board. What we are supposed to do is to discuss things. When that becomes impossible to do, the board loses its reason for living. It turns into something else, the Intercst's Views on Politics and Religion board.And there's nothing wrong with having a board on Motley Fool on that subject. Change the name and I have no complaint. But let's stop trying to fool people into thinking that this is a place where they can come to discuss strategies for achieving early retirement, shall we? First of all, let's stop fooling ourselves.
The question is whether people should be permitted to discuss matters of critical importance to the board's mission.Have you tried the Board for Planet X?
hocus said:get as many of your friends to partcipate as possible,================First - Let me say I am new here and have been lurking. I am not friends of any of these folks you have been exchanging posts with in this thread.Second - I suggested you give it a break and you said you understood. Since then you have continued to write many posts, most of them long, and most of them about you, your plans, your intentions, how you have been attacked, etc. If you want posts about you to cease, you should cease posting.Third - I thought, from comments you and others made, that you were going to start another board and post your theories there. I did a check on your personal page awhile back and the last 99 posts were to this board or ITF. Why are you not posting on your board?Fourth - You seem to be concerned that this board is failing and that you can save it. I don't know what the board was like three years, two years, or two months ago, because I wasn't here. But in my opinion, YOU, HOCUS are doing more to damage this board than anyone else.Fifth and Final - Many have suggested that your posts are too long. Rather than make an attempt to edit your work, you continue to post long submissions and to justify their length. I think you are in love with your own words. If you want to be taken seriously on TMF or anywhere else, I suggest you compose in Word, save the document, and return to it the next day when the joy of creation has waned. Then edit. Then copy/paste/post.GG
Hats on cookies you see wrote:I hope you will be helping me in the rebuiding effort in the days to come, GolfWayMore You have made many valuable contributions. If I recall correctly, there was a brief time when I was listed as one of your favorite fools (I am not sure about this), so perhaps you once thought that I had something of value to offer as well. Let's work together, and see if a year from now we can bring this site back to the heights it reached in its heyday.IF the above is true (which I find it impossible and proposterous), GWM has more than made up for this youthful indiscretion.I love the American idiom: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
I suggested you give it a break and you said you understood. That's right, GritsGuru. Give me a magic wand to make the questions stop, and I can make my responses to the questions stop.The problem with not responding to questions that are posed is that it may lead some to believe that there is some valid point being offered in those questions that I am not able to respond to reasonably. I do not want to leave that impression with any reasonable minded members of this community because I want to have further discussions with them about how to achieve early retirement, whether those discussions take place here or elsewhere.My hands are a bit tied in this matter, GritsGuru. If you possess a magic wand, this would be a grand time to pull it out of your pocket and give it a little wave in the air.
Give me a magic wand to make the questions stop, and I can make my responses to the questions stop.Dude, I'm trying to be helpful here, really: don't you know that you can only control your OWN behavior and not the behavior of others?You don't have to answer the phone just because it's ringing, you know.CK
My hands are a bit tied in this matter, GritsGuru. If you possess a magic wand, this would be a grand time to pull it out of your pocket and give it a little wave in the air.I've been told by many of the fairer sex that MY wand is truely magical.I've been waving it in the air all morning and nothing...nada. The certifiable one is still posting.Are the guys in the white coats on strike this week?
4 people voted that your ideas ARE getting traction at REHP. ------ If this means that things have reached such a state that there are only four souls remaining in this community who care to learn what it takes to put together an effective plan for early retirement, that saddens me You mean that you believe only your ideas can bring about an "effective plan for early retirement"? That to me seems to be the height of conceit. So long as there is one soul voting for a board that serves the purpose Motley Fool intends You think that without you and your ideas we are all wandering in the darkness? How do all those other boards get by without you there to keep them going in the "right" direction? I again implore you to check out some of them and set them straight - perhaps "Give me my recs" or "Christian Fools". Hyperborea
I am asking that intercst [refrain from] witty repartee ... Surely you've noticed, hocus, that intercst hasn't said "Boo!" during the entire course of your "return."I betcha if you posted a starting thought for what it is you actually want to say, you may actually find yourself in the midst of "uninterrupted discussion."As for his "witty repartee"--which much of the time is witty only to himself--he's as entitled to post it as you are to post your long treatises. Believe me, they are equally numbing to the mind.
If you want to be taken seriously on TMF or anywhere else, I suggest you compose in Word, save the document, and return to it the next day when the joy of creation has waned. Then edit. Then copy/paste/post.Oh, we have tried. We have suggested, encouraged, cajoled, demonstrated, etc., Etc., ETC.! about his long-windedness. But he ... will ... not ... stop composing posts that are 10-20 times longer than anyone else's.
CC on hocus: I betcha if you posted a starting thought for what it is you actually want to say, you may actually find yourself in the midst of "uninterrupted discussion."Most of what I get from hocus is1) Use historical data for analysis2) All the models that use historical data are not correct for the future3) The board should do all the work since hocus isn't mathematically inclined or able to analyze things.4) Hocus has a 'feeling' that 2% withdrawal might work, but is taking 4% from his 100% bond/CD/MMF portfolio, despite his claim be believes people should have some equities. This, by itself, can be shown over nearly every 30 year period to have 'failed'. Thus, for someone whose portfolio is already doomed, and who is taking nearly twice the safe withdrawal rate based upon "historical data" to argue that the models are wrong, and that going forward one should put the hocus factors (notably investors panic and sell all their stocks, wiping out their long term gains, immediately paying any taxes due, and then being 100% in bonds/CDs/MMF), seems strange. Hocus seems to fail to see that historical data could care less about 'investor sentiment' or unemployment or any other factor. All of those resulted in actions, which then influenced the value of equities. If people panicked and sold, then stocks dropped at that point. If people 'bought', the prices went up. Plain and simple. All that is already 100% reflected in the historical data. BUt hocus wants a 'fudge factor' applied to 100% accurate historical data?????Yes, no one knows the future. IF it isn't anything like the past, then obviously trends that continued over 150 years of market history will be different. But neither hocus or the folks on the crystal ball board have a clue as to what returns on ANY investment will be over the next 30-50 years. If I recall right, most say that the probability of things continuing the way they are for the next 30-50 years are likely no better than 85 percent...So if you have 99% probablity in your portfolio survival, you have to look at other factors (like asteroids, supervolcanoes, nuclear war, mass illness, civil war, tsunamis, etc) which limit the top end of the probabilites to less than 100%. We've had doomsayers (the end of the earth is near)...predicting impending crashes every five years for the past 100 years.....and others predicting DOW 50,000 or 100,000.....Most of us will take the historical data, and go from there.
Don't you know that you can only control your OWN behavior and not the behavior of others?Of course. I've controlled mine from the first day. You see no deception, disruption, attack,or ridicule coming from me. That evidences control, given what I'm up against here.But consider my dilemma, chockokitty.I started this debate with a post I put to the board on May 13, 2002. Starting a debate in my book carries with it a responsibility to respond to any legitimate questions that the debate provokes among community members. What do you suggest I do after saying that this is the most important issue facing the board at this time, just ignore supposed attempts to come to terms with it? That can't be right.If you say that most of the questiions being offered are phony ones posted with no purpose other than disruption, you've got me. I see that. But what if one of the people who has put up dozens of phony questions aimed at wasting the board's time in the past is now on the verge of coming around to doing the right thing? What then? Should I pass up the opportunity to bring the board back to life that that opportunity represents? I can't see into the minds of the people that post here, chocokitty. I have to presume that there is some minimal honesty in the questions being brought forward by the other side, or I become a cynic.The post you put up just prior to this one is a perfect illustration of the difficulty I face here. You put up a link to the "Bernstein on Valuation." Now that is a truly connstructive thing to do. It suggests that someone might actually want to consider some of the points I have made here, rather than just smash, smash, smash. But you also included some grumbling suggesting exasperation with me for not providing the link.Well, I am the one who has been sitting at my computer patiently answering question after question after question for six months. I am the constructive one here, ChocoKitty I've posted scores of links in that time. And every post I've offered has been offered in a constructive spirit., in the spirit of Learning Together that these boards are supposed to be about. Just when I stop doing it because it's become so obvious that no one is willing to take the time to read the links (or they wouldn't ask the same exact question 300 times), you come along to express exasperation that I don't put up yet another link.It's just as with the long posting critique. I put up a short one to save everyone's time, and Telegraph and markr33 and hyperborea are on the phone about how terribly revealing it is that I mentioned only six of the points raised by Bernstein instead of all seven that are on page 237. If I cover all the bases, I am slammed, and if I miss a base, I am slammed. Give me some consistent advice, and I'll try to follow it.The killer is that you offer no advice whatsoever to hyperborea, markr33, and telegraph. That tells us all something about where you are coming from, chocokitty. On the surface, exasperation with the time wasted. I reality, no complaint with the ones that have wasted hundreds upon hundreds of person hours so long as they are doing so in the cause of blocking debate and not in the cause of allowing it to go forward.The gig is up, chocokitty. You overplayed your hand, and any reasonable person knows that the supposed concern over providing a learning experience is mock. Otherwise, you would be doing the things that need to be done to make that happen.I'll handle my posting decisions, and you take care of yours, OK? If you have any advice to offer on how to save some of the board's time, try sending it in the direction where it desperately needs to be heard and where it might do us all some good.Let me know what you come up with after your close read of the "Bernstein on Valuation" post. I know that you intend to follow the link you posted, read the material contained there, and allow it to influence your position on this critical issue.
You mean that you believe only your ideas can bring about an "effective plan for early retirement"? That to me seems to be the height of conceit. This is not so regarding my advice on safe withdrawal rates. I have said many times that if someone thinks that the intercst approach will work better in his or her circumstances, that is the way that he or she should go.However, I do believe that my idea that the board needs to be open to the discussion of alternatives to the intercst investing approach is key to any hopes it has of thriving in the future. The point of a discussion board is to have discussions, and if all views other than the one "rational" one are ridiculed, there is nothing left to talk about. When it reaches that point, a board begins to die.
I have to presume that there is some minimal honesty in the questions being brought forward by the other side, or I become a cynic.As a wise man once said, better a cynic than a horse's ass.sydsydsyd
syd observes:As a wise man once said, better a cynic than a horse's ass.Amen my brother.
I assume I'm one of the many "readers" but rare "posters" here. I've followed this board for a long time, sometimes finding value, sometimes not. I've never found it necessary to P-box anyone but I admit that I pay more attention to some posters than others. I subscribe to the "silence is golden" theory.I also believe that "less is more."With every new post from hocus, the value of his stock drops in my book.With every moment that passes where intercst remains silent, the value of his stock goes up in my book.
Surely you've noticed, hocus, that intercst hasn't said "Boo!" during the entire course of your "return."I noticed, and this is to his credit. He has shown admirable restraint over the course of the past 24 hours. I betcha if you posted a starting thought for what it is you actually want to say, you may actually find yourself in the midst of "uninterrupted discussion."You just don't get it, Cstherine, no matter how many times I spell it out. There is no thing that I want to say I want to have a conversation. That means that I say one thing, and someone else says something else, and so on. The converation doesn't come to an end in one day, or one week, or one month, or one year. It is an ongoing phenomenon.At the end, we have a new study, which might well be termed the Intercst II study if someone could find a way to make that happen. And the new study is bigger and bolder and better than the old one. Coming up with a new study does not mean that it was a mistake to issue the old one. The old one was the best thing out there at the time. But mankind's knowledge on any subject does not stand still for all time. When you develop new insights, the idea is to incorporate them into your thinking.My suggestion is not to subtract by putting some earlier study down, it is to add by enhancing it. I am not anti-intercst. I am not anti-intercst study. I am pro-early retirement. I don't see why the two things must be made to seem mutually exclusive possibilities on this board.he's as entitled to post it as you are to post your long treatisesYou're wrong, Catherine. Please read the Motley Fool posting rules. I think there's a link at the bottom of the page marked "Learning Together."
But neither hocus or the folks on the crystal ball board have a clue as to what returns on ANY investment will be over the next 30-50 years. Bernstein does not agree with you, Telegraph. He says that the Fisher Analysis can be used to arrive at valid estimates of long-term stck returns. The Fisher Analysis is not a crystal ball. It is an approach based on how stock markets have always performed in the past. It is rooted in data.The intercst approach is rooted in data, but it does not factor in the data needed to come to vaiid assessments of what may happen to your investments in the future. Thus, anyone relying solely on the data condidered in his study is taking a big chance. Taking big chances is not generally considered to be "100 percent safe."
Bernstein does not agree with you========================Sheesh, hocus, you're sounding more and more like a one-trick pony.Just start a new board:VeryEarlyRetirement -BernsteinOffersSimpleExplanationGG
grits writes:Sheesh, hocus, you're sounding more and more like a one-trick pony.Nope. He always sounds like a psychotic manic depressive that's stopped taking his meds.
I hope you will be helping me in the rebuiding effort in the days to come, GolfWayMore You have made many valuable contributions. If I recall correctly, there was a brief time when I was listed as one of your favorite fools (I am not sure about this), so perhaps you once thought that I had something of value to offer as well. Let's work together, and see if a year from now we can bring this site back to the heights it reached in its heyday. You're mistaken.Just taking the step of deciding that that's we are going to begin to do turns everything around, I believe. Once you are involved in something constructive rather than destructive, it fills you with energy and optimism. This board needs more of both than it has enjoyed in recent months, according to my perception of things. You and 3 others are the only ones looking to turn things around. Scores of others like things just as they are, thanks. Golfwaymore
hocus:Bernstein does not agree with you========================GritsBuru:Sheesh, hocus, you're sounding more and more like a one-trick pony.Having Bernstein on your side is a darn good "trick" to have in your possession, GG. A trick like that is just about the only trick anyone needs. If the board declares Bernstein "loony" too, you really go off the edge of a cliff.What to do?.
If you can't maintain support for the intercst study when you control 100 threads for each one in which I am permitted to post my thoughts without disruptions, deception, ridicule, and attack, then you don't have much of a position to defend.Huh? Do you mean "you" as in RN, or "you" as in "one"?Not that I don't find this entire exchange to be muddled anyway, but I was curious.I used to come here all the time. I want to retire early. This board is more entertaining than informative nowadays, though I manage to glean the occasional useful tip here and there.For the record, I very much enjoyed hocus's "The High Cost of Flattery" post and I as well regularly visit the Intercst's Retire Early Home Page. Why can't we all just get along?
He has shown admirable restraint over the course of the past 24 hoursFriendly advice: Might do you well to exercise some as well. Too much noise here.
<it's not that the Board doesn't want to make sense of your views, it's that the Board doesn't agree with your views, and there's a difference you don't seem to grasp>I think the board is generally open to all clearly explained points of view on subjects near and dear to FI/RE people. I think most of those here will listen to alternatives and decide if they may or may not be useful.Case in point. It is through a series of discussions here that I added the catagory of REITs to my portfolio in early 2000. It is also from this board that I poured some serious money into bonds in 1999-2000. Both catagories served me well during the steep downturn. I was not smart enough to exit some of my other stock holdings and got hammered just like the rest of you. This board helped keep a couple of bad years from becoming horrible years. There are people here who have succeeded by using rental properties as an income and growth source. Some of the discussions did get carried away on both sides, but there was more than enough put forth for people to decide for themselves if this was a good strategy to follow. GWM and Seattle Pioneer have both benefitted from real estate investing (and stocks too). Intercst clearly does not favor such a strategy. The three of them are all long time regular posters who have very distinct POV on many subjects. I may not agree with them all the time, but I have benefitted from what each of them has said. Maybe part of it is that they post on a wide variety of subjects. Hocus keeps pounding the same drum long after we have gotten tired of hearing it. It is his right as a paid FOOL to pound it as loud or as often as he wants to. It is not our obligation to listen anymore. I bring these points up to demonstrate that contrary views are bandied about here every day. When I listened to the real estate debate, I saw good points on both sides. I knew that being a landlord is not in my temperment. However, an extension of those discussions led me to REITs, which I am more than comfortable with. I do not care whether or not some people think they are a terrible asset class to invest in. I merely post my thoughts and experiences about it and leave it to the individuals to decide for themselves if it may be good for them. I would not waste vast amounts of energy trying to convince Intercst that he should be investing heavily into real estate. Similarly, I would not spend the same energy trying to convince GWM to get rid of all of his real estate holdings. SP has some views on social security that I disagree with. Because that is not the only subject he posts on, I came to realize that there are many other areas that we do agree on. He has made countless posts that have been very helpful to the board and myself. I think that posting on a wide range of subjects is what makes for a good poster over the long term. By only playing the same sour note time after time, Hocus grates on our nerves. There may be a wealth of other subjects that would not cause such a visceral reaction to him. Since he chooses not to jump in to any other discussions, OT or on, we won't know if the Hocus Threshold would be crossed on those subjects too.BRG
The problem with not responding to questions that are posed is that it may lead some to believe that there is some valid point being offered in those questions that I am not able to respond to reasonably.Actually, the responses themselves indicate an inability to respond reasonably.My hands are a bit tied in this matter, GritsGuru. If you possess a magic wand, this would be a grand time to pull it out of your pocket and give it a little wave in the air.Please. Stop the victim mentality already. Either you can communicate your ideas clearly or you can't. Clear communication of your ideas does not lie on GritsGuru's shoulders--it's on yours and yours alone! It's high time you started taking a bit of personal responsibility. The one and only reason why people think your ideas sound looney is because you make them sound looney. If you write a 2,000 word post that sounds looney, it is not the fault of GritisGuru, intercst, TMFBogey, or anyone else. It's your fault! It becomes wearisome that the one person who could help hocus communicate clearly won't lift a finger to do so and instead choose to blame everyone around him.According to the most recent poll results, 83% of respondents think your ideas are losing traction. That means one (or both) of two things:1) You cannot clearly communicate your ideas to the vast majority of readers. And/or,2) The vast majority of readers disagree with your ideas. Also, I should note that in another post you claimed to have discovered "exciting stuff," which you can't post here for a number of reasons, yet you have the ability to repost all the old unexciting stuff (Berstein, etc.) again and again. If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest it's high time to ante' up with some new material. Because despite your attempts to pump some air into it, the old stuff is getting pretty tired. --Once again, breaking my solemn oath to myself not to post to 'He Who Severs Communications' threads.
(hocus)"There is no thing that I want to say; I want to have a conversation." [semicolon mine]This reminds me of an old (grammar-school level) prank: One says to a friend, out of a clear blue sky, "Let's tell knock-knock jokes -- you start." He obligingly says "Knock-knock." One then responds "Who's there?" He's now flummoxed, because it's his turn and, not having thought the game through, he has nothing to say. One exits, laughing.You said (above) you want a conversation (apparently on a subject of your choosing) but you want someone else to start it for you. Can you see the illogic of this?If you really want a conversation, offer a constructive idea with some hard details and see if anyone is interested. If your idea interests anybody and contains enough real information for them to build on, they will respond and your conversation is going. If no one responds, you've gotten your answer even if you don't like it.So far you seem to be saying, "Let's discuss my retirement scheme -- you start."Regards,holzgrafe
sykesix opines:The one and only reason why people think your ideas sound looney is because you make them sound looney. No. His ideas sound looney because they ARE looney. "Thinking" and "sounding" are not even remotely in this picture<grin>.He Who Severs Communications' threads.This is TOO KEWL!!! Big kudos on your mastery of subliminal thinking (idea credit goes to guru GWM--who is now fishing way more). May I use it?
By only playing the same sour note time after time, Hocus grates on our nerves. There may be a wealth of other subjects that would not cause such a visceral reaction to him. We all know there are, tons of them! And the part that is most distressing to me personnally is that I don't particularly enjoy talking about investing, it's one of my least favorite Retire Early subjects. But the board as a whole hasn't given much choice, has it?I am not writing about this stuff as a lark, Gurdison This is my life's work. I expect to be learning about and sharing information about how to retire early with interested parties for the next 25 years or so. This board is the largest congregation of interested parties in existence today. I can't allow claims that I do not look at all available data carefully prior to offering my opinions on a subject, or that I don't understand Bernstein's book, or that I favor a zero stock allocation, to go unanswered if I am going to have credibility to offer advice on this subject in the future.So I have to answer any even halfway reasonable questions posed. I know that 80 percent of the questions posed here were not sincere requests for information but attempts to clog up the board with so many posts that all the people who want to hear what I have to say will give up. I caught on to that game a long, long time ago. But I am in a position where I have to respond whether I like it or not. These posts create a historical record, they remain here for years after they are posted. There have been a lot of denigrating things said about me here. I need to have my side of the story told too so that fair-minded people who review the record in the future will see that I did everything in my power to make the debate a constructive one. I can do no more than that and I can do no less.The consensus is that I should start my own board. I'm not thrilled about the idea, but I see the point that it is probably the most constructive thing to do here. I think that after a few posts are up on the new board, I will get used to the idea and it will be fine. But I cannot as a practical matter do this today. So we need to figure out some means of having the time pass in a reasonably smooth way for all concerned in the interim.I hadn't posted here for several months until a few days ago. I woke up Monday morning with no intent of posting then. But PeteyPerson put up a post that raised a fair criticism of my actions in regard to the Passion Saving board, and I believe that it is fair for me to address such comments when they are posted here. So I did. That led to someone else making a comment, and then someone else, and then we are off to the races again.The board can get off the races at any time it pleases. No individual, including me, can force the board to do that. I would like to see it happen, but I can't make it happen. My view is that you could help by asking the disrupters to stop the nonsense, but it's your call.I do think I have a right to post comments on the Improve the Fool board on how to improve the fool. I have an investment in this community. I have put up a lot of posts here that a large number of people have found value in, and it's my intention to be putting up a much larger number of such posts in days to come. I want to see these discussion boards work well so that those efforts are as fruitful as possible. I believe that TMFBogey's Board General standard makes that less likely than if he adminstered the boards according to the published rules. You are entitled to disagree and you are entitled to express your disagreement on the boards, but I am entitled to post my suggestions too.Whether intercst wants to provide a link to any posts about this board that I put up elsewhere is his decision. I thought it was a good idea myself, and I recced his link for that reason, but that's just me. Arrette seems to think that I did something behind his back, but my comments were made out in the open for anyone interested in the subject matter to see and comment on. If intercst would like me to notify him when I make such comments in the future, I am perfectly happy to go along with that. I'm not going to do it if he doesn't ask because I think that would be presumptious of me. Perhaps he could care less about my suggestions for how to improve the fool. He does not have the same views on all these questions as me, and I don't see why he should.The bottom line is that all this stuff goes into a sort of "permanent record." I would not like the way I would look in that permanent record if the negative things said about me here were in that record and the responses that I and some others have offered were not. As things stand now, I think the permanent record here is going to make me look very good indeed as time passes. There are all sorts of interesting issues raised in the debate transcript, and while I don't say that I got every last one of my lines perfect, I think that the overall impression of the posts with my name on them will make on fair-minded people will be highly positive. I will come out of this thing OK.I'm in the process of going through all the posts and putting them together in a binder for use in development of a teaching tool. One thought I have is to publish the thing as a free booklet in PDF form and put it on a web site so that people who come to the new board will be able to download it and discuss the topics that were raised here last summer.It is not my intent to make anyone look bad, of course. The purpose is to teach and learn about an important subject matter. But I suspect that some who posted here during the debate may have done so in haste at times, and might want to modify or enhance some of the comments they made before having others see them and reflect on them. That's OK with me. If anyone wants to offer addendums to comments they put forward this summer, I'm happy to include the addendums as well as the original comments in any teaching tool that I develop. Just let me know.The debate on safe withdrawal rates is going to go forward whether it goes forward here or not. I have had a lot of good times here, and think of a lot of people here as my friends, so my preference is that it go forward here. I'm not blind, though. I see that there is a group that has no intent of permitting that to happen, and I have probably already devoted more energy to trying to find some means of getting that group to stay within the rules than I should have. Still, I generally would rather error on the side of trying too hard than on the side of trying too little.If you really don't want to learn how safe withdrawal rates work, no one is going to force you. The historical data doesn't care, it continues to exist whether you acknowledge its existence or not. People who do want to know how SWRs work care, but there comes a time when those sorts of people will just stand up and walk out of the room and find a place to conduct their business where it can be done in a reasonably efficient way. The only people I'm trying to communicate with here are the ones who do want to learn, and my sense from reading the board is that there are still a few of those residing at this place. I will be back to let you know about the new board when it is ready to go up, and we will have a lot of fun going over all of this stuff when we get the chance.Gurdison, I personnally do not include you in that group. I see you as someone who puts up posts asking questions about this stuff that requires me to put up posts offering answers. My sense of you is that you would prefer that people not learn about this subject, but if that is true, you should stop posting because that would ensure that I would stop too. Perhaps I'm wrong about you, and your mind is still a little open, and there will be something I will say that will turn you around. In that event, I'll be even more glad that I continued responding to your questions because in that event you too will be able to join in the fun and learning that will commence at some future time and probably at some future place.I have my suspicions about you, Gurdison but my suspicions are not necessarily true. Until I know for absolutely certain, I have no choice but to assume the best despite all the evidence outstanding to the contrary and continue responding to your posts. If you can prove to me that you don't want to know about this stuff, I can give it up and stop conversing with you. The clearest and most convincing way to assure me of that is to just stop posting.Can you please do that now?
If you really want a conversation, offer a constructive idea with some hard details and see if anyone is interested. Holzgrafe:The place to go to see the constructive suggestions I have offered as a means of getting conversations started here is in the first posts in each of the threads that I initiated. Here is a list of their names in order of appearance on the board: (1) Personalized Safe Withdrawal Rates; (2) The Coin Toss; (3) My Plan; (4) TMF on Board Generals; (5) We've Found the Data!; (6) What Bernstein Says; (7) What Gurdison Says; (8) Bernstein on Valuation; and (9) Logic Chain.Each of those posts were attempts by me to communicate something of importance to the board. Judging by the the number of recs that readers of this board elected to assign them, they achieved that goal to an extraordinary degree. "The Coin Toss" is the 57th most valuable post of over 83.000 posted to this board, according to the readers of the board. "My Plan" is in the top 70 of all time. "What Bernstein Says" received over 40 recs, putting it way above the majority of posts offered here. Most of the others too were well received. None of these nine posts in which I endeavored to transmit valuable information to the board were ignored by the board. The board's desire to know more about the subject matter is undeniable.The problem begins after I put up a post, when the reactions to the intiial post begin to appear on the board. In the early days of this debate, there were many constructive reactions, both positive and negative, that helped the board sharpen its understanding of the issues. Check the record, and you will see. Most of those 16 positive comments that I listed in a post a day or two ago were put up in those early days when those who do not agree with me were playing by the rules.Then intercst took a fateful step. He said that the board culture here is to "ridicule" those who disagree with him on safe withdrawal rates. He didn't say that the culture is to debate, or to scrutinize, or to weigh different ideas, or any of the other things permitted in the TMF rules. He said that the culture here demands that those ideas be ridiculed. The TMF rules don't permit that. I know because I checked.From that point, things did not proceed so swimmingly. Intercst said that ridicule was required, and ridicule there was. The TMF rules aimed at ensuring that we "learn together" were violated, and we all received a powerful demonstration of why those rules were formulated in the first place.If you paid $30 to see "witty repartee", you got what you paid for. But if you paid $30 to see "learning together," which is what the company which owns the board promised you when you handed over the money, you have been denied fair value in that exchange. I want my $30 of value, but I can't get it unless there are a few others here who share my feeling that the thing that I paid for should be provided me forthwith.If you want to experience learning together, let us know. You shouldn't have to do that, the learning together should happen a lot more easily than this. But the world is what the world is. Those on this board who possess a desire to learn are going to have to speak up for themselves or they are not going to get what they want. Like it or not, that's the reality.
LOL (lack of lithium) writes:As things stand now, I think the permanent record here is going to make me look very good indeed as time passes. There are all sorts of interesting issues raised in the debate transcript, and while I don't say that I got every last one of my lines perfect, I think that the overall impression of the posts with my name on them will make on fair-minded people will be highly positive.You'll always be a bipolar LOL to me.
>>>>>>Here is a list of their names in order of appearance on the board: (1) Personalized Safe Withdrawal Rates; (2) The Coin Toss; (3) My Plan; (4) TMF on Board Generals; (5) We've Found the Data!; (6) What Bernstein Says; (7) What Gurdison Says; (8) Bernstein on Valuation; and (9) Logic Chain.>>>>>>Please provide links to this posts.JanSz
Here is a list of their names in order of appearance on the board: (1) Personalized Safe Withdrawal Rates; (2) The Coin Toss; (3) My Plan; (4) TMF on Board Generals; (5) We've Found the Data!; (6) What Bernstein Says; (7) What Gurdison Says; (8) Bernstein on Valuation; and (9) Logic Chain.>>>>>>Please provide links to this posts.JanSz <understatement on> He can't post right at the moment. <understatement off>arrete
JanSz --Here are some links that might be right. We trust you are wanting to study these in private. ;-)(1) Personalized Safe Withdrawal RatesDoes not exist; maybe he meant this one:http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=17209214(2) The Coin Tosshttp://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=17389587(3) My Planhttp://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=17246781(4) TMF on Board GeneralsDoes not exist; maybe he meant this one:http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=17513212(5) We've Found the Data!http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=17685306(6) What Bernstein Sayshttp://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=17744487(7) What Gurdison Sayshttp://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=17756054(8) Bernstein on Valuationhttp://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=17766719(9) Logic Chainhttp://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=17766273-
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |