A. 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.
B. Hocus likes to call some methods of estimating swr invalid based on his own definition of swr and probably "invalid." I can't really make any sense of this. We had many long discussions that led nowhere. I have tried to sum up the issue in this thread. If you want to know what hocus means you will have to ask him. He prefers not to address swr in an unrestricted forum so you would need to go to his "research" board. Keep in mind that he has said:
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.
I have read posts on his board without any electrical shock. I think he means that if you post in disagreement with anything he has said you will get the shock. Wanderer apparently violated the "community standards" at the board. He can probably provide guidelines. He was referring to a chapter in 4 pillars by Bernstein but I think there are other things that can land you in trouble on that board.
Further keep in mind that not only do hocus/jwr have a definition of "swr," they have defined a "pwr" and "yswr." Also don't use the term fSWR this has been changed to hdbr. And under no circumstances should you mention fswr
Addressing the hocus confusion
Addressing the hocus confusion
Have fun.
Ataloss
Ataloss
-
- ** Regular
- Posts: 84
- Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:59 am
- Location: Florida
I preferred BenSolar's wording to either A or B.
Edited to add the BenSolar wording I was talking about (from the FAQ thread):
Edited to add the BenSolar wording I was talking about (from the FAQ thread):
Something like:
<<
People seem to have different preferences on how to estimate or calculate a SWR. This has generated heated discussions at times. The SWR Research Group board attempts to extend the precision and utility of SWR calculations and uses a definition of the phrase 'Safe Withdrawal Rate' (and sometimes other words) that can put them at odds with other's thoughts or work on the subject.
>>
WiseNLucky
I just wish everyone could step back and get less car and less house then they want, and realize they don't NEED more. -- NeuroFool
I just wish everyone could step back and get less car and less house then they want, and realize they don't NEED more. -- NeuroFool
WiseNLucky wrote: I preferred BenSolar's wording to either A or B.
I agree with WiseNLucky
Again, I like the more diplomatic approach because the FAQ is the public face of the FIRE board. I prefer to not expose family squabbles to the public. Anyone who gets involved in any depth with these boards and the SWR issue will undoubtably see them in due time.
"Do not spoil what you have by desiring what you have not; remember that what you now have was once among the things only hoped for." - Epicurus
Let's not get stuck on this
I say just put in some general statement such as the one suggested and some links and leave it at that. The links can be contributed by the particpants in the many discussions so all sides can be heard.
In the meantime, there are still important topics to be covered. I took a quick look and I don't see any discussions about health insurance. How about some practical links to COBRA, high deductible policies, partial self-insurance, going to other countries for medical care, etc. ? I will put together some materials but I am sure others have ideas.
Dual
In the meantime, there are still important topics to be covered. I took a quick look and I don't see any discussions about health insurance. How about some practical links to COBRA, high deductible policies, partial self-insurance, going to other countries for medical care, etc. ? I will put together some materials but I am sure others have ideas.
Dual