NoFeeBoards.com!

No Fees! No Ads! No Spam!

Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search NoFeeBoards.com! Forum Index

Thoughts on dividends as a reliable income source

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    NoFeeBoards.com! Forum Index » SWR Research Group
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
peteyperson
**** Heavy Hitter


Joined: 26 Nov 2002
Posts: 525

PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2003 4:50 am    Post subject: Thoughts on dividends as a reliable income source Reply with quote

I thought it might be useful to add some of my thoughts on John R's recent posts relating to dividends as a way to mostly fund FIRE, leaving the majority of stock assets alone.

Having taken a couple of weeks away, my own thinking had been running along those lines so it was a suprise to take a look at hocus's board and see John ruminating on the same stuff! (And yes, hocus, it is your board, thought of as your board, so pls don't waste my time with a page long rebuttal about why it is not your board).

It seems from your posts, John, that you think dividends hold water right up until the point when they don't. Smile To use dividends to their full extent, you would need to go long on the market and leave cash buffers in a more limited position (or indeed go 100% market to maximise possible dividend income). This would go against the grain of what the wealthy do (I've posted a seperate thread linking to the Merrill Lynch reports on the wealthy and their asset allocations). US investors are around 50% stocks, European around 35%. It would seem to me that it is sort of an either or proposition. You either max them out and hope for the best or you have a far more diversified portfolio where dividends are only a small part of your income. A highly diversified portfolio (as demonstrated by the wealthy in the report) avoid steep drops in wealth, in 2002 when the S&P500 dropped 18%, they lost only 2.1%. Their goal is wealth preservation over excessive amounts of return and risk. Return and risks generally go hand in hand.

I am beginning to believe more and more that whilst the accumulation stage can be quite aggressive with allocation and lack of diversity, the distribution stage needs to be quite the opposite. If so, this would make dividend distribution but a small part of the overall whole and the variability would not be of as much consequence. With heavy diversification your returns/income on various assets classes will vary year to year but will smooth out the heavy variances most years (as the diversification used by the 7 million millionaires analysed by Merrill Lynch has shown).

Given that at times Mr Market has been down for stretches as long as 20 years and given your intention to not have one year of spending per retirement year but use some principle & returns above inflation to fund FIRE, I just don't think with 70%+ market allocation you're safe. If you hit a 10-20 year market low, you're screwed. If you started with one year of cash for every year of planned retirement, then you would only need inflation + investment costs + taxes to be able to take 1/50th of your assets out a year (FIRE at age 50) and inflation protect the remaining funds. A mix of investments may be able to push up your returns to make living off less assets viable without spending them down but I don't think dividends are solely the answer. High allocation would mean too much risk for variable return. Low allocation would make a calculation of whether you can live off dividends + 1% moot.

Thoughts?

P.S. Let me know if you find the Wealth reports useful. I thought they were inciteful. Europeans invest very differently than Americans (discussed in the 2002 report).

Petey


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus
Moderator


Joined: 02 Dec 2002
Posts: 435

PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2003 8:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hocus, it is your board, thought of as your board, so pls don't waste my time with a page long rebuttal about why it is not your board).

It is not my board, Pete.

Please tell me how it is that you believe I came to possess ownership of this board. Did I contribute something financially towards its upkeep? Was it handed over to me as part of a gift or bequest?

None of these things happened. The individual who built this site is ES. This site and the boards on it are owned by ES. He announced a policy by which various people can establish boards of their own choosing, and serve as moderators of them, and I took him up on that offer. That doesn't make this my board anymore than it makes it your board that as moderator I have adopted policies that permit you to post here. You post here subject to my policies as moderator and I moderate here subject to ES's policies as site owner.

Who writes the rules that govern the operation of boards at this site? ES does. There is a link on the home page that will take you to those rules, if you want to check them out. I didn't write them. ES wrote them. If I "own" this board, why didn't I write the rules that govern it? The obvious answer is that I own nothing. I moderate this board. I do write the rules as to how this board will be moderated. But that is the extent of my authority here. I moderate, I do not own.

Under the policies that I have adopted as moderator, the board is being run as a community resource. I have made a commitment to protect the community that congregates here from the negative effects of word game posts and ridicule posts, and I will honor that commitment. I will steer the board so that over time it will make progress on realizing its mission, which I describe in the "About This Board" post. Those are the sorts of tasks performed by a moderator, not the sort performed by an owner.

You are not the only community member who has made comments in recent days suggesting a belief that I "own" this board, or that in some sense this is "my" board rather than a community resourse. I would like to gain a better sense of why this sort of thing is being said, and why it has become important for some to believe this fiction and to spread belief in this fiction. Is there some reason you can point to as to why it has become important to you to believe that this is my board rather than a board created to serve the entire FIRE comunity in its efforts to learn how to achieve financial independence early in life?


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
peteyperson
**** Heavy Hitter


Joined: 26 Nov 2002
Posts: 525

PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2003 9:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hocus,

I came back to the board to put up a new thread, hoping to avoid the politics and bickering. I added a special sentence all for you advising you not to enter into a page long diatribe about who's board it is. You just don't listen!!

Quote:
And yes, hocus, it is your board, thought of as your board, so pls don't waste my time with a page long rebuttal about why it is not your board

The post was an informative, discussion-based one. It followed on from John's recent posts. It was not so the only reply was from you starting yet another arguement over semantics! I'm so tired of all that crap from you, bolding every name and going over and over tired disputes like life depended on it. I choose to spend my time carefully and I don't intend to spend much more of it on your pointless semantics. Now, a meaningful discussion of investing and retirement, that's another matter.

Please stay on topic and stop the nonsense. This is exactly why I avoid coming to this board despite some of the things John discusses which I think have merit and I feel competent to discuss.

Petey

hocus wrote:
hocus, it is your board, thought of as your board, so pls don't waste my time with a page long rebuttal about why it is not your board).

It is not my board, Pete.

Please tell me how it is that you believe I came to possess ownership of this board. Did I contribute something financially towards its upkeep? Was it handed over to me as part of a gift or bequest?


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus
Moderator


Joined: 02 Dec 2002
Posts: 435

PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2003 11:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I added a special sentence all for you advising you not to enter into a page long diatribe about who's board it is. You just don't listen!!

This is not the first time that this sort of thing has happened. I think it was you who noted a few weeks back that, had I listened to the views expressed by some others, I probably would not have opened up this new board in the first place!

The post was an informative, discussion-based one.

I noticed that and I thought it was a good sign.

I'm so tired of all that crap from you, bolding every name....

I've never understood the controversy over the bolding of names. I bold names as a courtesy to community members who might want to know that they are mentioned in a post without having to read the entire thing. Why do some people take offense at that?

I choose to spend my time carefully and I don't intend to spend much more of it on your pointless semantics.

You and me are on the same page with this one, Pete. One of my reasons for starting the new board was to set up a place where people could disucss SWRs without getting tied up in word game discusssions. There's been a lot of that stuff over the course of the 15-month Great Debate on SWRs, and, as you suggest above, we all have only so much time available to us. I have grown weary of that stuff.

I will do what I can to keep the semantics stuff at this board to a minimum, Pete. I have some ideas of my own as to how to go about this. But I am open to suggestions from community members on how to proceed. Please do not hesitate to share any ideas you have along these lines.

Please stay on topic and stop the nonsense.

You're the one who brought the "my board" stuff up, Pete! And you are not the only one. Since the opening of this board, I have seen four or five posts relating to this question at various boards. My sense is that it has become a point of considerable confusion.

I understand that the focus of your post was the matters of substance you were raising, and I think that stuff is important. But the practical reality is that there are other community members who in the past have shown an interest in posting on issues of substance. As a general rule, you do not see many posts outside of those that I put up that address the questions and concerns of community members on the process side< of the SWR matter. If I did not respond to the questions and comments of that sort that are put up, I think there is a good chance that those questions and comments would generate no responses at all. Do you think that would be a good thing?

I'm like everyone else, Pete. If I had my druthers, I would prefer to discuss substance. But there are only so many hours in a day, and the process stuff usually takes up every minute that I have available for posting, and then a whole bunch more on top of that.

I would love to be able to just take an afternoon and respond to your substance comments. But where do you think that I will get the time? The FIRE community (and this includes you) has a seemingly insatiable interest in the process stuff. I know that some say that they do not like that stuff. But that is not the message you get from reading the posts. When it comes to posting, people simply cannot get enough of the process stuff. Actions speak louder than words, Pete.

I hope that others respond to the points of substance that you put forward. In the event that time opens up for me at some point to do so, I will make an effort to respond to that stuff myself. For now, I need to do the best that I can to meet my obligations to the FIRE community re the SWR process questions while also doing something re my non-discussion board responsibilities. If I tried to respond to the process stuff and the substance stuff too, there would be zero time for me to do anything else. I hope that you can see that it is simply not reasonable to expect me to follow that course.

This is exactly why I avoid coming to this board despite some of the things John discusses which I think have merit and I feel competent to discuss.

I hope that you continue to participate, Pete. Some of the stuff that JWR1945 has been putting up is of great significance and deserves much more discussion than it has so far received. I would like to see a lot more community members participating regularly at this board. We have important work to do here, and the more people we have helping out the sooner we will be able to make progress toward achievement of our goals.

The benefit of a discussion board is that it allows for a community of people to work together on issues of mutual interest. I don't like it that the majority of the posts at this board until now have been generated by two community members. I hope that some others will read your words above, see the wisdom in the idea being expressed, and make a greater effort to contribute to the work being done here. We need more regular posters at this board for it to achieve its full potential, in my view.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
peteyperson
**** Heavy Hitter


Joined: 26 Nov 2002
Posts: 525

PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2003 1:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hocus,

The problem here in essence is that a single post has now had 3 replies about you. None have had anything to do with the topic "dividends" and you haven't posted a reply to what I have discussed on that subject. This drags the focus away from the topic in much the same way that you have complained that intercst does. That is as frustrating for others as you found it to be with intercst.

The bolding of the names. I think any bolding needs to be sparingly used if it is to be effective. The problem there is that your posts talk about things rather than about finance tend to go on for volumes, paragraphs upon paragraphs, and so there's bolding everywhere. I simply tune out now when you do that, it takes too much energy & time to wade thru it. Sooner or later when someone drones on about something they don't like, someone will eventually shout, "STOP! What are you going to do about it now?" In other words, what is your plan or lets discuss different approaches. Do something to fix it. That's a constructive thing, what you do a lot of the time is complain. After the initial thing, that does no good.

Your posts can be divided into two camps, ones where you talk about past events, intercst did this, when intercst said that etc and people are so sick of that I cannot tell you, and then your posts about finance. When you mentioned a few weeks ago that I used to enjoy your posts, you didn't realise that I was referring to your posts that used length to good purpose and were related to finance rather than part of a wordy battle of words against intercst or whoever else.

You seem to simply have this large blindspot where more and more people won't come to the board because of you, wanderer and Bensolar judging by the long recent thread have had close to enough of it and you're not connecting the dots & realising you are the cause. Claiming to be the originator of certain ideas has now led you all on a tit for tat who said it first, sort of like a prior art claim on crazy patents the US Patent office has been busily handing out the last few years. This is more pointless, time draining and frustrating behaviour that exasperates everyone involved. Again, this centers around the way you write, communicate and discuss things. It is left to John to try to say, " What hocus really meant was.. " and clean up after you. If you only dropped all of that argumentative stuff and focused solely on discussing various approach to finances with a much more open outlook to different approaches, you'd fair much better. To this you usually always reply that you'll look into that, yet you seem unable to change this behaviour. Sometimes people can be clever enough to justify anything, prove anything to themselves but it doesn't make them right. When you approach people with a smile and arms and palms open, it's a welcoming, open stance that encourages people to contribute and be friendly. Online, by having very fixed approaches you do the opposite. Hopefully I've been fair in my comments, your approach made me quite angry a couple of weeks ago which is why I took a step back as that's not what I want out of spending time at nofee. So I've tried to give you a balanced answer to some of your points and to expand honestly my own perspective. However, respectfully, I don't wish to get into a debate about it as that'll eat yet more time.

I'm expecting that John will take several days to get to my thread as he's usually behind due to the volume and a busy schedule, I just don't want someone to take one look, see a bunch of posts about nothing but back n forth stuff that can go unsaid and ignore the substance, a post on dividends.

Petey

hocus wrote:
I added a special sentence all for you advising you not to enter into a page long diatribe about who's board it is. You just don't listen!!

This is not the first time that this sort of thing has happened. I think it was you who noted a few weeks back that, had I listened to the views expressed by some others, I probably would not have opened up this new board in the first place!


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JWR1945
***** Legend


Joined: 26 Nov 2002
Posts: 1697
Location: Crestview, Florida

PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2003 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

peteyperson wrote:
Having taken a couple of weeks away, my own thinking had been running along those lines so it was a surprise to take a look at hocus's board and see John ruminating on the same stuff!

Don't be surprised. I have mentioned several times that I am interested in your technical approaches. I still am.

Quote:
I am beginning to believe more and more that whilst the accumulation stage can be quite aggressive with allocation and lack of diversity, the distribution stage needs to be quite the opposite.

I recommend diversity. The reason for my narrow focus has been because of the tools that are available to us. We have a long history associated with the S&P 500 index. It has a lot of lessons for us.

It is not that difficult to extend the kinds of things that we have learned from the S&P 500 index and the historical sequence calculators. We now know the importance of separating the reliable, steady components of a complex portfolio from the highly volatile components. Of course, diversification can reduce overall volatility. That improves safety. There is a bonus that we know about when we re-balance from time to time. And finally, we need to be very careful about expenses.

Quote:
Given that at times Mr Market has been down for stretches as long as 20 years and given your intention to not have one year of spending per retirement year but use some principle & returns above inflation to fund FIRE...

I am happy to report that I finally have a handle on that. My latest study finally gets us to where we can talk about your ideas in detail. In essence, we should not try to apply our historical sequence calculators directly any longer because the S&P 500 of yesterday no longer exists. That is the key. We have been struggling to beat something that no longer exists. We can make things a whole lot better for today's investors.

See my (JWR1945) latest post about How to Make Switching Work from Sun Aug 17, 2003 2:20 pm.
http://nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=1279

Quote:
A mix of investments may be able to push up your returns to make living off less assets viable without spending them down but I don't think dividends are solely the answer.

Yes! Yes! Yes! I now have proof that this can be done. Now let us continue to improve our answers.

Quote:
P.S. Let me know if you find the Wealth reports useful.

I imagine that they will be. You have come up with some very good ideas in the past. Since you have recommended these reports, I suspect that they will be very much worth reading.

Have fun.

John R.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus
Moderator


Joined: 02 Dec 2002
Posts: 435

PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2003 3:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The problem here in essence is that a single post has now had 3 replies about you.

This is a big problem.

During the course of The Great Debate, there have been six posts about hocus for every one about some issue of substance. I would like it to be 50 on substance for each one having to do with a particular poster, perhaps with one or two references per year to the particular poster named "hocus."

What I need from you is suggestions for how to make this happen. I don't think that the way to go is to refer to this board as "the hocus board." Each time you do that, you do more to create an association in people's minds between the SWR issue and the poster named "hocus." So let's cut that out, OK?

it takes too much energy & time to wade thru it.

You only have to read the posts dealing with process matters, Pete. How do you think it feels to be the one who has to write them?

This is why I believe the board community owes me a big "thank you" at this point. I have been dealing with this junk for 15 months now, and no one else has devoted one-tenth of the energy or time to it that I have. It has now been determined that I was absolutely right on this thing from the first day, and that all of the effort that I have put into it is going to pay off big time for everyone in this board community.

So how about breaking down and giving a little recognition to that reality, Pete? I knocked myself out for you. How about you working up whatever it takes for you to acknowledge the debt and put up a little "thank you" post? It couldn't possibly hurt, and my sense is that it might do the entire board community a whole bunch of good.

When you approach people with a smile and arms and palms open, it's a welcoming, open stance that encourages people to contribute and be friendly.

I've been pretty darn open-palmed to you and everyone else on this site in the face of a whole bunch of hostile posts. Open palms work in two directions, Pete. My bet is you'll feel better about yourself after you do whatever it is you feel that you should do.

However, respectfully, I don't wish to get into a debate about it as that'll eat yet more time.

That's good. Don't talk. Do. Just drop all the expressions of hostility toward me as a person and get about doing the business of the board.

We're here to learn about how to achieve financial independence early in life. Let's do that. Sometimes one person gets the credit for the insight and sometimes it's someone else. Stop worrying so much that it was me this time and let's all be sure next time not to worry so much about giving credit where it is due so that we don't find ourselves again walking down dark alleys. "Thank you" is a phrase with magical powers, not just for the person hearing it but for the person saying it too. Let's all try to tap into that magic a little more in the future than we have managed to in the recent past.

I'm game for moving past all the junk if you are.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
peteyperson
**** Heavy Hitter


Joined: 26 Nov 2002
Posts: 525

PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2003 4:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hocus,

Having read your entire reply (rare), I only have a few comments.

The name, SWR Research Group Board is a mouthful to remember, type etc. Hocus's board is easy and everyone refers to it that way. I can't see that changing, just like people often call the REHP board intercst's board.

I would say get used to it.

With regard to the thank you. This made you even more unpopular the first time you tried that tack. You personally decided to stick around when things got unpleasant. That was a choice you made and we are not now accountable for the time spent/lost as a result. I don't believe nor do I feel others believe that that then entitles you to anything special as a result. Add to that the impression many have that you brought at least some of it on yourself once it kicked off and there is considerable feeling that you have caused many lost hours for us all here with your argumentative attitude to the whole situation. Even having relocated first to nofee and now to your own board on nofee, the bickering and time draining posts you often put up have robbed many including myself of time we'll never get back. Avoiding that is difficult if we're to read your posts but avoid the ones that go round in circles, don't stick to financial topics or come to a point.

This is why people here feel it is a bit (or a large chunk) rich to ask for thanks. I'm not now asking for the time back (as if that were possible), but I'm certainly restricting your access to future time I have available until I see you are using it more respectfully. Respectfully in this context would mean responding to posts on topic, staying on topic during the whole of the reply & not resorting to intercst this intercst that, being constructive and helpful and having an open mind to different financial ideas. I see none of this and I'm not alone in that.

Petey

hocus wrote:
The problem here in essence is that a single post has now had 3 replies about you.

This is a big problem.

During the course of The Great Debate, there have been six posts about hocus for every one about some issue of substance. I would like it to be 50 on substance for each one having to do with a particular poster, perhaps with one or two references per year to the particular poster named "hocus."


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus
Moderator


Joined: 02 Dec 2002
Posts: 435

PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2003 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hocus's board is easy and everyone refers to it that way. I can't see that changing, just like people often call the REHP board intercst's board.

Why not call the REHP board hocus's board? I've done more to build up that board than I have to build up this one.

I don't think of either of the two boards as "hocus's board." I view both boards as community boards. But I think it makes more sense to call the REHP board hocus's board than to call the SWR Research Group board hocus's board. I'm not even a numbers guy, and the SWR is a data-based concept. What sense does it make to refer to a board that is largely about numbers by the name of a poster who is not skilled in the use of numbers? Many of the top posts of all time on the REHP board are soft-side posts, and the soft side is my specialty. So I think it makes more sense to refer to that one as my board than this one (although I don't see the need to refer to either of the two boards as my board).

Why would anyone even think of calling the REHP board the intercst board? Has he not torn that board to the ground and then burned it to ashes? Have you taken a look at it lately?

You personally decided to stick around when things got unpleasant. That was a choice you made and we are not now accountable for the time spent/lost as a result.

You certainty are going to share in the benefits of the insight now that my claims have been vindicated, aren't you? Is it not the customary thing to thank someone when they put forward a great deal of effort than ends up providing a great deal of benefit to you?

Add to that the impression many have that you brought at least some of it on yourself once it kicked off and there is considerable feeling that you have caused many lost hours for us all here with your argumentative attitude to the whole situation.

Where did this "impression" you have come from, Pete? Is there any basis to it or are you repeating some nonsense that was put forward by another poster as if there were something to it? Don't talk to me about impressions and feelings, Pete. Talk to me about what took place in the real world.

How many lost hours did BenSolar cause us with his idea to add little h's and f's to the letters SWR? Are there any "impressions" or "considerable feelings" as a result of that? Or are there only "impressions" and "considerble feelings" about posters who are proven right in the claims they make on behalf of the board community? 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. That's all in the record, verifiable from looking at the Post Archives.

the bickering and time draining posts you often put up have robbed many including myself of time we'll never get back.

I have never put up a bickering or time-draining post in my entire posting career, Pete. Put up a link to one.

I have responded to hundreds and hundreds. If there is any poster in this community who has a compliant about time lost responding to hostile and uninformed posts, it is me. If others spent one-tenth the time studying the issues before they posted that I do, we would have covered a whole lot more ground than we have in a whole lot less time. 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.

Respectfully in this context would mean responding to posts on topic, staying on topic during the whole of the reply & not resorting to intercst this intercst that, being constructive and helpful and having an open mind to different financial ideas.

I respond to the questions and comments posted by other community members, Pete. If you want to bring up the question of whether I own the board or not, I will direct my attention to that issue. If you want to hear about intercst's role in this, I will direct my attention to that. If you want to talk about what the data says on SWRs, I will direct my attention to that.

No one poster here dictates the agenda. Your posts reveal what you want the agenda to be. Do not blame me when you put a topic on the table, and then do not like hearing an accurate and informed treatment of the question you raised.

If you want to hear a different sort of answer, ask a different sort of question.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
peteyperson
**** Heavy Hitter


Joined: 26 Nov 2002
Posts: 525

PostPosted: Mon Aug 18, 2003 2:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hocus,

As I said in my previous post and in fact to my original post asking you not to reply off-topic, I will hold to that and not continue with this for your benefit. It benefits no one else, you just seem to be in a self-repeating cycle.

I could give you all the examples you want, I seriously believe it would:

1) Make no difference

2) Be a waste of time

P.S. Calling the REHP the hocus board when you've been banned was a master stroke of arrogance and short-sighted behaviour. That was a disappointment to see yet again.

Petey

hocus wrote:
Hocus's board is easy and everyone refers to it that way. I can't see that changing, just like people often call the REHP board intercst's board.

Why not call the REHP board hocus's board? I've done more to build up that board than I have to build up this one.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus
Moderator


Joined: 02 Dec 2002
Posts: 435

PostPosted: Mon Aug 18, 2003 3:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Calling the REHP the hocus board when you've been banned was a master stroke of arrogance and short-sighted behaviour.

I was banned for continuing to offer honest and informed posts on the subject matter of the board in the face of intimidation tactics engaged in by Disruptors. Do you think that the community of people which congregates there to learn about the subject matter is going to hold that against me? I sincerely doubt it.

I do not propose that people begin referring to the REHP board as "the hocus board." I want to be clear on that. But it would not surprise me if the members of the FIRE community who have tried to make use of that board to learn about the subject matter took to referring to it in that manner after I liberate it for that use. We'll have to wait and see.

As I said in my previous post and in fact to my original post asking you not to reply off-topic...

Earlier this morning, I put up a post on this thread at the FIRE board:

http://www.nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=1280

I conclude that post with a suggestion that future discussions re SWRs be moved to this board. I think that might help you in your effort to obtain more comments re the issues of substance raised in your posts here, Pete.

It might help if you would put up a post on the FIRE board thread endorsing my suggestion. I think it would count for a lot to have some community members other than me speaking out in favor of this idea.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
peteyperson
**** Heavy Hitter


Joined: 26 Nov 2002
Posts: 525

PostPosted: Mon Aug 18, 2003 7:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

At this time, I couldn't think of a worse suggestion.

Moving some discussion to the SWR board resulted in you offending a bunch of people over requests for thanks, which you again did to me yesterday. This does not encourage me or others to return when this is the behaviour we receive.

Endorsing you seems to have the reverse effect. I believe John should move back to the FIRE board and leave you to stew until you mature a little and look back and see how you have been behaving.

If your approach should change then I would take another look but people have lost faith in you at this point. This is clear not by my citing a post here and there to satisfy you but simply by the fact that people refuse to participate on the SWR board and wherever you go things seem to erupt. You're the common denominator. At the moment "the distruptor" as you refer to them is you.

I do not say this in a mean spirited way, just the way I things at this time.

Petey

hocus wrote:
It might help if you would put up a post on the FIRE board thread endorsing my suggestion. I think it would count for a lot to have some community members other than me speaking out in favor of this idea.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus
Moderator


Joined: 02 Dec 2002
Posts: 435

PostPosted: Mon Aug 18, 2003 7:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wherever you go things seem to erupt.

It's true. I can't even post at the Newbies board anymore without tempers getting short and people quoting Beatle's songs and such.

I do not say this in a mean spirited way, just the way I see things at this time.

OK, Pete. Your heart is in the right place, and that counts for a lot in my book.

I hope you get some good responses to the points of substance you put forward yesterday. Whether that happens at this board or at the other one makes no real difference so far as I am concerned. It's all the same community anyway so far as I can tell.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    NoFeeBoards.com! Forum Index » SWR Research Group All times are GMT - 9 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
Designed for Trushkin.net | Styles Database