NoFeeBoards.com!

Playing the mis-representation game again , hocus
Now I know why few people are sympathetic with your views

You said that the substance of my invalidity claim was "fine," and I was letting you know that I appreciated you doing that. I do appreciate it. I put your own words in italics so that everyone would know exactly what they were. There was no misrepresentation whatsoever.

There's something going out of whack here if someone can't put up a "thank you" post without getting his chops busted for it.

You said that the substance of my invalidity claim was "fine,"

hocus
A totally absurd mis-representation of what I said, it's laughable :D:D:D
I very much regret that I have to repeat -
"Now I know why few people are sympathetic with your views :x"

A totally absurd mis-representation of what I said, it's laughable

All that I can think of to do in response is to set forth the words that appear in your initial post as you wrote them, and then set forth the words in my post quoting your words.

Your words:.....hocus has chosen the "invalid" word very carefully - it's not a question of semantics.
The substance of his conclusion is fine

my quoting of your words: hocus has chosen the "invalid" word very carefully - it's not a question of semantics.
The substance of his conclusion is fine

I engaged in no misrepresentation whatsever.

hocus

I engaged in no misrepresentation whatsever.

If you want to play pathetic, childish word games you can play them on your own. If I responded in a manner that your games deserve then ES wouldn't like it (and I have no problems with that, ES )

Goodbye :!:

I don't see much point in discussing things with hocus under the circumstances

sad but true

ES
Is the "looney" word permitted on NFB?

Only referring to myself, of course :D........ for getting involved in such a pathetically stupid discussion in the first place :shock:

LOL, perhaps I need counseling. I have been the worst in terms of replying to hocus and trying to explain things. That is my original ideal in the FRH posts. I was thinking of a series of them. Hocus says x but I (or better yet we) say y. Just to present the other side. No more wasted and repetitive effort to explain things to hous with the looney idea that he would listen

I was thinking of some sort of FRH aimed at the issue of prediction of future in general and wrt swr. Hocus has a lot of confidence in this than I do.

Stay away from the dark side guys... :D

Greetings Ken :)

Is the "looney" word permitted on NFB?

As long as you are referring to yourself, ES(Who IS looney! :shock:), or some kind of bird, I would say yes! :roll:

As long as you are referring to yourself

Who else? :D

Had to change my signature again ..... this is getting to be hard work :roll:

Now all I have to do is remember all that in case I debate with hocus again - which is highly improbable, I hope :)

I apologise in advance for belabouring the point, but I just can't resist.

Unbelievable

I am the most informed poster in the FIRE community on the subject of SWRs. This is fact
hocus Sun Jul 27

Do you see any word games in my posts? Do you see any personal attacks?
hocus Sun Jul 27

sorry, I missed one - again unbelievable

There may be some who do not possess a clear understanding of exactly how a SWR is defined in the studies ......... If there are genuine points of confusion, I am happy to help out.
hocus Sat July 26

.......a few more hocus quotes.......

I have never put up a bickering or time-draining post in my entire posting career,
hocus Sun Aug 17

It is not the posters who know what they are talking about that waste the community's time when they post. It is those who don't bother to do their homework, yet post as if they possess a better understanding of the issues than those who do.
hocus Sun Aug 17

The one thing that distinguishes me from all others in this matter is that I am the only one who understood the realities of SWRs from the first day.
hocus Sun Aug 17

I have never put up a bickering or time-draining post in my entire posting career,

hocus Sun Aug 17

Although amazing he is serious. Looking at the swr board yesterday. Petey tries to discuss something and is taken to task for referring to the hocus board as the hocus board.

Hocus required jwr1945 to call results of studies (trinity, rehp) the historical data base rate - hDBT rather than hSWR as proposed by bensolar. Big progress in swr research indeed :)

I submit this statement as proof positive of my assertion that KenM is light years ahead of many. IMHO, he is light years ahead of most.

jwr1945 6/3/03

I agree :)

since hocus is frequently saying that he hasn't been argumentative should there be a FRH on this matter (his quotes and links to counterexamples?)

ataloss

Hocus required jwr1945 to call results of studies (trinity, rehp) the historical data base rate

Absolutely False. It was my idea entirely. The distinction is important.

Historical Database Rates have no predictive features. They are no more than outcomes. They are not probabilities, estimates or predictions.

Have fun.

John R.

this is the thread where I said:

I have decided to use the conventional definitions of words. By withdrawal rate I will mean inflation adjusted based on the original portfolio value. By safe I will mean deemed to be unlikely to fail

and jwr insisted:

I must insist that you restrict yourself to the official definition if you are going to use the term Safe Withdrawal Rate. It is OK for you to talk about what you are talking about. Just use different words. You may work on changing the official definition if you so desire. That is OK. But until you do, I must insist that you restrict your choice of words.

I had concluded that definitions were being used to control thought
rather than enhance understanding