Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 28
You guys put the fun in dysfunctional. ;)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
You guys put the fun in dysfunctional. ;)

Be careful, tmeri. If you get more than 63 recs for this post, I'm going to use it as even stronger evidence that there is a substantial segment of this community that would like to see more on-topic posting and fewer personal attacks.

I'm joshing, of course.

Still, I did give you a big fat rec for hitting exactly the right note.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
You guys put the fun in dysfunctional.

I'm not going to name names, but a few of you put the "tired" in "reTIRED early."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 41
hocus warns:

Be careful, tmeri. If you get more than 63 recs for this post, I'm going to use it as even stronger evidence that there is a substantial segment of this community that would like to see more on-topic posting and fewer personal attacks.

I'm joshing, of course.



You may be joshing, hocus, but to be perfectly honest, a very large part of the trouble you stir up is because of the kind of misrepresenation you hint at in this post. You frequently point to posts and claim that the number of recs that the post received is an indication of the number of people who gave the post a rec for whatever reason you want to assign. For all I know, the people rec'ing my original post in this thread are doing so because they think you're the source of the dysfunction.

You also datamine the board. You recently responded to one of my posts with a bunch of links to posts complaining about off-topic posting:

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=18341205

In particular, you highlighted this post by russg, which garnered 25 recs:

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=15931487

You somehow overlooked this post, condemning those who complain about off-topic posts, in the same thread, which garnered 38 recs:

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=15937265

Would it be fair to say that there are more people who wish people would quit complaining about off-topic posts than there are people who dislike off-topic posts?

Your posts are filled with logical inconsistencies. I do not have time to dig them all out, but they are easy to find. Until now, I've resisted the temptation to respond to your posts, hoping that if everyone would quit responding, you would have no more grist for the mill. And I'm pretty sure I'm going to regret this post for precisely that reason.

But really, hocus, your misrepresentations and imaginary issues are getting out of hand. There is no gentle way to tell you this, but whenever I read your complaints about deception and disruption on this board, I can't help but wonder to myself if you are really talking about your own activities. When I read this, for example:

The deceptions have obviously had an influence on the perceptions of community members. Clearly, InParadise was buried in the scores of nonsense posts put up in the disruption effort, and clearly her ability and the ability of many others on the board to make sense of the SWR question was undermined as a result.

from your post:

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=18233436

I had the very strong impression that you were talking about yourself. Your use of the passive voice hides the actors. I worry that it is not an accident of writing style. A journalist would know better.

I wish you only the best and do not support the ugly things that have been said about anyone. But hocus, you need to get help, you really do.

-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
<<I wish you only the best and do not support the ugly things that have been said about anyone. But hocus, you need to get help, you really do.

-
>>


Now, don't get on Hocus's case. He has a beautiful mind.





Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
For all I know, the people rec'ing my original post in this thread are doing so because they think you're the source of the dysfunction.

I'm sure that some of them are, tmeri. That's why I said I was joshing.

I don't think there is any misrepresentation in my description of the poll post, however. In the poll from Monday, 63 people said that the board is "going to hell" because of its focus on off-topic posting and personal attacks.

I'm not saying that all 63 want hocus as board general. That's far from true. But there are 63 who want either fewer personal attacks or more on-topic posting. I am working to achieve fewer personal attacks and more on-topic posting on this board. So there is a clear convergence in my interests and the interests of these 63 community members.

These 63 are the people I want to have a conversation with, not Telegraph, or Gurdison, or Hyperborea. Personally, I would be perfectly happy if those three never posted on this question again. I am not questioning their right to post. They are entitled. I am just saying that they do not add too much to the discussion, from my perspective.

You somehow overlooked this post, condemning those who complain about off-topic posts, in the same thread, which garnered 38 recs:

I don't deny that there is a substantial segment of the community that likes off-topic posting. I am just saying that there is also a substantial segment that would like more on-topic posting. I believe that as a community we need to come up with some means of addressing the needs of all segments.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Now, don't get on Hocus's case. He has a beautiful mind.

Thanks, SeattlePioneer. I think.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1

Thanks, SeattlePioneer. I think.


Apparently, you have not seen "A Beautiful Mind".

I think.

- TD
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 18
In the poll from Monday, 63 people said that the board is "going to hell" because of its focus on off-topic posting and personal attacks.
These 63 are the people I want to have a conversation with...

What makes you think those 63 people aren't talking about you? It seems to me that there was no problem of this nature until you started your crusade.

Regards,
holzgrafe
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<In the poll from Monday, 63 people said that the board is "going to hell" because of its focus on off-topic posting and personal attacks.
These 63 are the people I want to have a conversation with...>>

What makes you think those 63 people aren't talking about you? It seems to me that there was no problem of this nature until you started your crusade.


Aha ... holzgrafe, you have great insight and I agree.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
What makes you think those 63 people aren't talking about you? It seems to me that there was no problem of this nature until you started your crusade.

There was indeed a problem before I dared to ask a question re the methodology of the intercst study. One of the things that prompted me to come forward with what I knew about the flaws in the intercst study was seeing wanderer driven off of this board. He was my favorite poster on the board. He now posts at the FIRE board at nofeeboards.com, along with a good number of others who were once the most knowledgeable posters at this board.

It hardly seems likely that most of a group expressing the view that the board has "gone to hell" because of off-topic debate could be complaining about me given that I have spent seven months trying to begin a discussion of the realities of safe withdrawal rates, an on-topic matter. Any complaints this group has about personal attacks cannot possibly be directed at me since I am the one who has been the object of the smear campaign, not the one advancing it. I am the one saying that posters here should follow the Motley Fool posting rules, which require debate on substance and which prohibit personal attacks.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Any complaints this group has about personal attacks cannot possibly be directed at me since I am the one who has been the object of the smear campaign, not the one advancing it. I am the one saying that posters here should follow the Motley Fool posting rules, which require debate on substance and which prohibit personal attacks.

You poor thing. Spending 12 hours a day just to show everyone the error of our ways. It can't be easy. Does your family life suffer from your dedication to truth, justice, and the American way?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Does your family life suffer from your dedication to truth, justice, and the American way?

Since you asked, yes it does. I don't do this for entirely altruistic reasons, however.

I am writing a book on the subject of how to achieve financial independence early in life. When the book is published, I am going to have to appear on interview programs to promote it. There is a chance that I will be asked two or three years from now "Weren't you a regular poster to that Motley Fool discussion board that was giving out false information on safe withdrawal rates that caused so many retirements to go bust?"

If that question is asked of me, I want to be in a position to give a response that comes off better than "well, yeah, but it was so difficult to stand up to the guy who was making the misleading statements that I just thought it best to take a pass."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
I am writing a book on the subject of how to achieve financial independence early in life. When the book is published, I am going to have to appear on interview programs to promote it. There is a chance that I will be asked two or three years from now "Weren't you a regular poster to that Motley Fool discussion board that was giving out false information on safe withdrawal rates that caused so many retirements to go bust?"

If that question is asked of me, I want to be in a position to give a response that comes off better than "well, yeah, but it was so difficult to stand up to the guy who was making the misleading statements that I just thought it best to take a pass."


hocus, aren't you getting a little ahead of yourself? I wouldn't worry about a hypothetical interview question on a hypothethical book promotion that might or might not happen. Heck, I'm writing a magazine article right now that I'm pretty sure will garner questions and criticism, but I find that every time I start think about that I start looking for every distraction NOT to write the article. So I don't think about it and just do my best on the piece.

Besides, if you're planning on being asked that question two or three years from now in a book promotion interview, you need to get the manuscript in to the publisher NOW. As you probably already know, lead time from manuscript to published book will be around 2 years if you're going the conventional route, IIRC. And that's assuming you already have a publisher.

Ah, the fun of the writing life....

CK
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
I have spent seven months trying to begin a discussion of the realities of safe withdrawal rates

There can be no doubt that a fact-based discussion of the realities of safe withdrawal rates is on-topic. Did it ever occur to you that, if you have spent seven months with no substantive response from the board, that the board consensus is that either your methods or your manner is not?

If, on the other hand, you feel that the consensus response has been substantive, what's your problem?

Or, if you feel that there has been substantive response that did not reflect the consensus, why don't you discuss your issues with those who did respond and leave the rest of us alone??

Regards,
holzgrafe
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Besides, if you're planning on being asked that question two or three years from now in a book promotion interview, you need to get the manuscript in to the publisher NOW.

Not to mention, he's got to hire the statistical brains to formulate a gigantic spread sheet to arrive at the ACTUAL safe withdrawal rate. Apparently, we're YEARS away from discovering it on this board.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I wouldn't worry about a hypothetical interview question on a hypothethical book promotion that might or might not happen.

I appreciate the point you are making, ChocoKitty But someone who asks people to buy his book is putting himself out in the public arena as an expert on the subject matter. What kind of an expert could I claim to be if I didn't even know what the safe withdrawal rate was?

There's a chance that a lot of people are going to suffer severe life setbacks as a result of the misleading claims that are made on this board. It would be different if it were possible for community members who have a different point of view to present their views on non-disrupted threads. But it's dangerous when people can only hear one side of the story.

I'm thinking that one way to go might be if as a community we could express a consensus simply to not talk about safe withdrawals rates on this board, either the Bernstein number or the intercst number. If newbies asked questions about SWRs, we could send them to the NoFeeBoards.com FIRE board or some other board.

Are there others who think that might be a reasonable way to proceed at this point?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Did it ever occur to you that, if you have spent seven months with no substantive response from the board, that the board consensus is that either your methods or your manner is not?

But holzgrafe, I have received tons of positive feedback on this from the board. The "Coin Toss" post describes one of the problems I have with the intercst study. That post received 86 recs. The "My Plan" post describes my approach to investing, which relies on an examination of the true SWRs for the various asset classes. That got over 80 recs. Before the smear campaign started, there was post after post after post in which community members said something to the effect of "this is the best on-topic debate we have had here in months, thanks for much for starting it."

It's not my method or manner that turms most people off, it's the fact that we are always talking about process and never substance. What I see on the board over and over again is when I get up a post on the substance of SWRs, there is a strong positive community response. Then come the attacks and the deceptions, and the majority of those interested leave the thread or leave the board altogether. People here love talking about the realities of SWRs. They hate this soap opera stuff that the threads become once the disrupters get down to business.

Why don't you discuss your issues with those who did respond and leave the rest of us alone??

It sounds to me that you are asking for exactly what I am asking for. I have requested that I be permitted to have one thread per month on SWRs that would be conducted according to the Motley Fool posting rules. If I can have that, I am happy to not post on any other investing thread that appears here. Intercst can put up 100 threads a month with the title "hocus is loony" and I will not object. I just want one non-circus thread per month.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Not to mention, he's got to hire the statistical brains to formulate a gigantic spread sheet to arrive at the ACTUAL safe withdrawal rate. Apparently, we're YEARS away from discovering it on this board.

We are a long time away from knowing the absolutely precise SWR for each type of investor and for each investment class. But you don't need to know all that to put together a perfectly reasonable plan for early retirement. I have reasonable confidence in my plan, and I didn't know the final SWR number before putting it together. I knew enough to make the plan work, and that's what matters.

But I sure would like to know more.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 12
I have received tons of positive feedback on this from the board.

That perception may be part of the problem. You have received, in some cases, a large number of recs. That does not constitute a "substantive response", it only indicates whistling and cheering from the gallery. Think "Roman coliseum." ;o) A "substantive response" to a question or an assertion is an authoritative answer (or a significant number of informed and considered attempts) or an equally significant number of reasoned and specific agreements or disagreements, respectively.

It looks to me like, in general, neither of these has happened, probably for the reasons discussed below. If they had, we wouldn't be where we are today.

It's not my method or manner that turms most people off, it's the fact that we are always talking about process and never substance.

I think what turns most people off is that, of late, you rarely talk about either. If you were to propose a specific process, in enough detail for someone to follow and respond to intelligently, or if you had any substance to offer for the board's consideration, I think you would get a lot of response.

Or at least you would after all the contamination generated by your current methods had washed through the system.

Why don't you try it that way?

Regards,
holzgrafe

BTW, I applaud CC's efforts to mediate.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
I'm thinking that one way to go might be if as a community we could express a consensus simply to not talk about safe withdrawals rates on this board, either the Bernstein number or the intercst number.

While we're at it, why don't we just agree not to talk about how to retire early?

Gee, hocus, for someone who thinks people are tired of off-topic posts, to have you seriously suggest that we should not discuss a CENTRAL issue is ludicrous!

-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
You have received, in some cases, a large number of recs. That does not constitute a "substantive response", it only indicates whistling and cheering from the gallery.

It's more than just lots of recs, holzgrafe. Here is a post in which a large number of community members express their desire for this debate to go forward.

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=17667548

If you were to propose a specific process, in enough detail for someone to follow and respond to intelligently....Why don't you try it that way?

The specific process I propose is that I put up a thread-starter dealing with some aspect of the SWR question. Community members with a desire to participate and with something constructive to offer the board, post to that thread. Those who have no interest in the project refrain, directing their energies to threads they perceive to offer more promise. And it goes on like that.

Does anyone have any objection to that sort of process?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
For someone who thinks people are tired of off-topic posts, to have you seriously suggest that we should not discuss a CENTRAL issue is ludicrous!

I don't view it as a ideal solution, tmeri.

But there were a few posts yesterday from community members who argued that it would be "depressing" to consider the SWR question unless we have a precise final answer in hand quickly. There's no way we can get that, given the fact that there is key data that is not publicly available. So I thought perhaps we could just take the entire matter off the table.

I certainly think it is preferable not to discuss the matter at all than to discuss only one study which offers results so far off the mark from what a recognized expert like Bernstein has come up with.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The specific process I propose is that I put up a thread-starter dealing with some aspect of the SWR question. Does anyone have any objection to that sort of process?

Someone will have an objection.

Please do it anyway. :)

dan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 14
Here is a post in which a large number of community members express their desire for this debate to go forward.

Your argument would be more convincing if your cited post had been more accurate. I didn't catch it at the time because it was just another interminable post wandering about a largely unsupported assertion, and I saw little point in spending the time necessary to read all of it.

In particular, I now see, you cited me! Under the heading "Set A: Posters Who Enjoy Broad Debate," you cite my message 68887. The thrust of that message was summed up in one line which you even included in your excerpt: "it's really depressing how little communication is achieved on either side."

Clearly you missed the point of my message, and a quick perusal of other quotations in your post shows that many of them don't support your assertion either.

In any case, I say again: If you have something substantive to say, say it, and if anybody here is interested they will reply. If they don't, you have your answer, whether you like it or not.

Take your medicine like an adult, and stop whining.

Regards,
holzgrafe
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Your argument would be more convincing if your cited post had been more accurate.

I quoted you and all the other posters accuately, holzgrafe.

The thrust of that message was summed up in one line which you even included in your excerpt: "it's really depressing how little communication is achieved on either side."Clearly you missed the point of my message.

I included it because I think it is an excellent point. I didn't miss the point at all. I was trying to draw attention to what you said because I didn't want anyone else on the board to miss the point you had made.

a quick perusal of other quotations in your post shows that many of them don't support your assertion either.

In the introduction to the post, I stated the following:

Please understand that I do not believe that any of the posters below agree with my views on investing. Most do not, or agree with some aspects of my views and not others. The point of the collection of posts is not to show that others agree with me, but to suggest that there are people other than me who would like to see a variety of investing options discussed on the board.

A community member need not agree with my investing views to be on "my side" in this matter, holzgrafe. Anyone who would like to see more on-topic debate is really on my side. It is theoretically possible that, if the debate goes forward, the consensus that will be reached is that the intercst study is perfect in every way. If that happens, I think it would be a good thing. That's what should happen if there are posts that can be offered under the Motley Fool posting rules that reassure community members of the merits of the study.

If you have something substantive to say, say it, and if anybody here is interested they will reply. If they don't, you have your answer, whether you like it or not.

What you are saying here strikes me as being similar to some things Galagan said in his post. If I am right about that, I hope you will give a recommendation to the Galagan post, Holzgrafe. I think it would be a constructive thing to do.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
It's not my method or manner that turms most people off,

I don't pretend to speak for "most" people, but (assuming this was from hocus) it was precisely his method & manner that landed him in my p-box.
Print the post Back To Top