unanswered questions

Financial Independence/Retire Early -- Learn How!
Post Reply
User avatar
ataloss
**** Heavy Hitter
Posts: 559
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:00 am

unanswered questions

Post by ataloss »

warning hocusology post- you might want to skip

On 8/6/03 jimbo asked:

WHY? What is your point in endless explainations of idiotic quotes from hocus?

I guess like a lot of people I skimmed the hocus posts and assumed that there must be something to them since they were so long and passionate. Once I started actually paying attention to what he was saying, I realized that it appeared self contradictory and confused. I have been trying to get him to answer questions and clarify matters.


Ok I found the Coin Toss post(68285 from TMF). This perplexes me:

Quote:
I know that there have been some who have been perplexed when I have argued that there is not one safe withdrawal rate, but many, that the safe withdrawal rate varies according to the personal circumstances of the particular investor at issue. 6/20/02


since hocus simultaneously maintains that:

Quote:
If we had perfect data, we could calculate the SWR perfectly. It is a mathematical construct. You take all the numbers for all the factors that influence the question, you add them up, and you have the answer. It is an objective exercise. Hocus 7/18/03

http://www.nofeeboards.com/boards/viewt ... oss#p11326

hocus responded:
This is not the appropriate thread nor the appropriate board for discussing the ins and outs of the "Coin Toss" post, Ataloss.

Maybe someday he will tell us if there is one swr or many. I saw what happened to Wanderer when he ventured to the other board, I am not eager to follow.



I asked about hocus' claim that the rehp study was wrong because it assumed that investors woud continue to rebalance per the formula regardless of market conditions. I wanted to know what hocus was doing to improve on this in his "approach". Didn't get an answer.

http://www.nofeeboards.com/boards/viewt ... 358#p11358

Maybe one of you will have better luck..

here hocus was asked for the current swr:
http://www.nofeeboards.com/boards/viewt ... 057#p10057
No answer
Have fun.

Ataloss
hocus
Moderator
Posts: 435
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 12:56 am

Post by hocus »

Maybe someday he will tell us if there is one swr or many.

If there are any community members who read this thread either now or at some later time, and have a genuine interest in knowing the answers to any of the questions posed re my views, please put up a post at the SWR board. I will respond there.

I saw what happened to Wanderer when he ventured to the other board, I am not eager to follow.

At the SWR board, the rules that apply to Wanderer also apply to all others, and the rules that apply to all others also apply to Wanderer. I am the moderator of the SWR board, and that is the way I play it.
User avatar
ataloss
**** Heavy Hitter
Posts: 559
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:00 am

Post by ataloss »

As you say in your welcome to the hocus board post, double wow
One of the neat things about being Moderator of this board is that I have the ability to deliver an electric shock to anyone who tries to read posts put to the board without first reading all the words of that chapter with care. Please do not give me cause to make use of this extraordinary power. Read the book, and, when you read it, think about the Deeper Meaning of those words.


IOW, agree with me and hail me as originator of insights
:lol:
Have fun.

Ataloss
JWR1945
***** Legend
Posts: 1697
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:59 am
Location: Crestview, Florida

Post by JWR1945 »

From the NoFeeBoards rules:
You agree, through your use of these boards, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of ANY law(s). You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or you have consent from the owner of the copyrighted material. Spam, flooding, advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are also inappropriate and will not be tolerated on these boards.

I believe that ataloss has violated all of the bolded restrictions. Even if others do not agree that all of them have been violated, they most assuredly will agree that at least one has been violated.

Please comply with the rules.

Have fun.

John R.
User avatar
ataloss
**** Heavy Hitter
Posts: 559
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:00 am

Post by ataloss »

jwr, I think you are basically offended by the fact that I dare ask hocus questions. This is not new.

Your response (9708) to Jimbo's question:
WHY? What is your point in endless explanations of idiotic quotes from hocus?


I consider it to be baiting. It is despicable.

John R.

I am not recognizing that hocus has any immunity from being asked to reconcile apparently contradictory statements.
Have fun.

Ataloss
raddr
*** Veteran
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:25 am
Contact:

Post by raddr »

JWR1945 wrote: From the NoFeeBoards rules:
You agree, through your use of these boards, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of ANY law(s). You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or you have consent from the owner of the copyrighted material. Spam, flooding, advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are also inappropriate and will not be tolerated on these boards.

I believe that ataloss has violated all of the bolded restrictions. Even if others do not agree that all of them have been violated, they most assuredly will agree that at least one has been violated.

Please comply with the rules.

Have fun.

John R.


I respectfully disagree. I don't think he has violated any of those. I think that the SWR board moderator has taken liberties with them, though. :(
User avatar
ElSupremo
Admin Board Member
Posts: 343
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 12:53 pm
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Post by ElSupremo »

Greetings John :)
I believe that ataloss has violated all of the bolded restrictions. Even if others do not agree that all of them have been violated, they most assuredly will agree that at least one has been violated.

I have to agree with raddr in that I don't think any rules were violated. However I would agree that in the spirit of avoiding conflict this post runs afoul of that. But then again ataloss or any of our other members has a right to question anything they feel to be wrong or confusing. I'll have to admit that I am confused most of the time. :? I don't really see any defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, hateful or harassing language in the post in question. I'm I missing something?
"The best things in life are FREE!"

www.nofeeboards.com
JWR1945
***** Legend
Posts: 1697
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:59 am
Location: Crestview, Florida

Post by JWR1945 »

Notice that this thread is centered around hocus. It is not centered around the technical issues, which can be discussed fully and in detail without any reference to anything that hocus has stated in the past.

Let me add that one can remain unconvinced about a matter without having to supply a superior alternative argument. He simply remains unconvinced. I know, for example, that raddr disagrees with me on several issues in spite of what I have posted. That is OK. It is not necessary for him to prove anything.

If someone disagrees with hocus, that is OK. It is not necessary to offer proof to the contrary. If someone wishes to offer an alternative point of view, that is OK. Present it. Just don't center it around hocus.

Have fun.

John R.
User avatar
ElSupremo
Admin Board Member
Posts: 343
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 12:53 pm
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Post by ElSupremo »

Greetings John :)

I understand what you are saying but since it's one persons opinions that are in dispute here I'm wondering how you could go about arguing them without naming the person that put forth the disputed information? If it were different groups (Democrats/Republicans :wink:) on each side of the fence then naming just one of them would not necessarily make sense. But from what I can tell that is not the case here.

I would be the first one to jump if I thought there was anything intentional going on here. This sort of reminds me of walking through a mine field blindfolded, chances are I'm going to get blown up. :cry:
"The best things in life are FREE!"

www.nofeeboards.com
User avatar
ataloss
**** Heavy Hitter
Posts: 559
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:00 am

Post by ataloss »

jwr
Notice that this thread is centered around hocus. It is not centered around the technical issues, which can be discussed fully and in detail without any reference to anything that hocus has stated in the past.


hocus
Also, I think it is better to make specific claims rather than vaguely stated ones. The current language from Ataloss states: "Some people seem to have unusually strongly held preferences on how to estimate or calculate a SWR. Sometimes they like to define their favorite as the only correct SWR. " My sense from the recent discussions at this board is that the reference to "some people" is a reference to me and perhaps to JWR1945. But the words themselves apply more to intercst than to either me or JWR1945.


simply a matter of making things more specific and less specific
Have fun.

Ataloss
raddr
*** Veteran
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:25 am
Contact:

Post by raddr »

ElSupremo wrote:
I have to agree with raddr in that I don't think any rules were violated. However I would agree that in the spirit of avoiding conflict this post runs afoul of that.


Hi ES,

Sage words as always. I should point out that I really don't like these kinds of threads either but I felt like ataloss hasn't broken any of the bolded commandments (I guess you agree) and I couldn't let that pass. That said, perhaps in the future Ataloss might not want to start anymore of these kinds of threads. :wink:
User avatar
ElSupremo
Admin Board Member
Posts: 343
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 12:53 pm
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Post by ElSupremo »

Greetings raddr :)
That said, perhaps in the future Ataloss might not want to start anymore of these kinds of threads.

Wana bet? :wink:
"The best things in life are FREE!"

www.nofeeboards.com
JWR1945
***** Legend
Posts: 1697
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:59 am
Location: Crestview, Florida

Post by JWR1945 »

There is no need for ataloss to quote hocus to present a point. He can state his opinions and preferences. There is no need for him to make a contrast.

The nature of his quotes has been to strip away the relevant context. It does not advance ideas. It simply resets the clock. It ignores all intervening developments. Making an adequate response is tedious and time consuming.

Let me move away from the details of this particular thread so as to reduce the rhetoric. I prefer to improve the tone of these discussions.

Consider the single word invalid.

I recently pointed out to hocus that people were misinterpreting his use of that word. He needed to add a qualifier. He has agreed. He is now using the phrase invalid for the purpose of determining SWRs instead of using the single word invalid. That qualifier along with the knowledge that we try to use precise language at the SWR Research Group should be enough to alert readers that there may be something that they are missing. And there is. And it is important.

See this thread from Friday, Sep 26, 2003, 1:33 pm CDT.
http://nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=1459

If someone were to quote hocus's use of the word invalid without providing this context, he would be misleading his readers. That is the nature of my complaint.

Have fun.

John R.
JWR1945
***** Legend
Posts: 1697
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:59 am
Location: Crestview, Florida

Post by JWR1945 »

ES
Wana bet?

I do. I want to bet that raddr is wrong.

Have fun.

John R.

P.S. BenSolar's latest posting tip works great. Thank you, BenSolar.
hocus
Moderator
Posts: 435
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 12:56 am

Post by hocus »

I recently pointed out to hocus that people were misinterpreting his use of that word. He needed to add a qualifier. He has agreed. He is now using the phrase invalid for the purpose of determining SWRs instead of using the single word invalid....If someone were to quote hocus's use of the word invalid without providing this context, he would be misleading his readers.

It's worth adding here that my agreement to add the phrase "for the purpose of determining SWRs" is not a change in my position. Anyone who has followed the discussions knows that my position from the beginning has been that the conventional methodology does a great job of doing what it does. My criticism has always been that it does not tell us what the SWR is and yet that is what studies using the conventional methodology purport to do.

I am happy to add the qualifying phrase whenever I use the word "invalid" from now on. But it would not be necessary to do this if the intent of all other posters was to engage in reasoned debate. There are scores of posts in the archives in which I state that the development of the conventional methodology was a breakthrough in SWR analysis, that the intercst study provides powerful insights to those who read it, that I have profited from it in my own planning, and so on. Anyone who has informed themselves of the issues knows that my claim that the conventional methodology is invalid has always been a claim that it is invalid for purposes of determining SWRs.

Adding the new phrase each time I use the word "invalid" will not solve the root problem, that some posters are not posting in good faith when they engage in discussions of SWRs. That problem can only be solved by members of the board community asking that the nonsense be put to an end.
Post Reply