Anybody have a copy of Terhorst's "cashing in"?

[wanderer]

goddammit this board is exciting! (is there a head shaking gif?)

I agree with essentially all ben just wrote. JWR's calculations are valuable but "prove" less than he asserts. They also relate to a world of which I am not a part - not for a long time do I expect to see a SWR 'mean' of 7%-8%. I putter along in a 1.6%-4% world.

I also agree with raddr. I think hocus is confusing this place with teh other joint.

btw, on a much more important note, did anybody notice that David slew Goliath, again, last night in Yanqui Stadium?

_________________
regards,

wanderer

The field has eyes / the wood has ears / I will see / be silent and hear

[hocus]

That you are still an occaisional topic of conversation over there is true but not for the self-important reasons that you are imagining.

Do you think that intercst would accept an invitation to appear at the SWR board as our second Special Event guest?

[[KenM]]

Regrettably, yet again I feel I have no alternative but to post on this issue. I was not involved in any previous "history" concerning hocus at TMF and I like to think that I have matured into a rational, tolerant person who can give anyone the benefit of the doubt on any issue.

That said, after 6 months as a member of NFB, in my opinion the only person I have found consistently playing obstructive, destructive, disruptive word games and continually mis-representing the words of other members in order to try to win cheap debating points --- is hocus. In my opinion, the only person consistently not prepared to agree-to-disagree in a friendly manner --- is hocus. In my opinion, the only person consistently not prepared to withdraw or amend statements that many knowledgable members have pointed out may not be entirely correct --- is hocus. In my opinion, the only person involved in discussions on SWRs who has not made a constructive contribution or helpful comment in the last 6 months --- is hocus.

The dangerous thing about hocus's behaviour is that it undoubtedly dissuades guests from becoming members of NFB and it does a disservice to rational debate on SWRs which would benefit all aspiring FIREEs. I therefore fully support ataloss's attempts to put on record and to draw attention to such behaviour. It is only then that we can have a balanced and rational representation of the situation ... unfortunately it appears to be a thankless and never-ending task.

hocus quote Sat Oct 25

[JWR1945]

in my opinion [hocus is] the only person I have found consistently playing obstructive, destructive, disruptive word games and continually mis-representing the words of other members in order to try to win cheap debating points...

Start paying very close attention to the indirect manner in which ataloss presents his opinions. He levies his attacks with seemingly innocuous statements. You can never take anything that he says at face value.

Shouldn't hocus defend himself when attacked?

Remember also that it is ataloss who keeps making hocus the issue. It is ataloss who will not let well enough alone.

Pay very close attention. ES stated that he does not see how ataloss indirectly called me a liar. I believe ES. I think that his understanding is typical. But look very closely about what ataloss has said, how he has chosen his words. Look at how strongly he conveys the impression that I must be lying.

No, it is not hocus who consistently play[s] obstructive, destructive, disruptive word games and continually mis-representing the words of other members in order to try to win cheap debating points...

Pay close attention. Pay very close attention.

Have fun.

John R.

[hocus]

hocus: At some point we need to determine as a community whether I am in fact an informed and honest community member, as I say I am, or an ant at a picnic, as Ataloss says I am. We don't need to reach a consensus on that today.

KenM: Why not, hocus??? Why don't you ask other members of NFB for their blunt and honest opinion on whether you are an "informed and honest" member?

The reason why we don't need to do it today is because, as important as our work on SWRs is, it is more important that we get it done right than that we get it done fast. My sense is that the board needs a rest from this so that it can turn to it with a fresh perspective at some later date. But I usuually take my cues as to how to proceed from the FIRE community ("the Wave"). You are a part of the Wave, KenM, and you are expressing a desire to move forward a bit now, so I will do what I can to accomodate you consisent with my desire to also do what I can to accomodate those community members who prefer that we not go forward too many steps all at once.

The reason why I do not ask for this board's opinion of whether I am an informed and honest poster on SWRs is that this board's opinion of that question is of little consequence. The SWR is a data-based construct. That means that it is data, not opinion, that decides who is right and who is wrong on this matter. You could win a vote 15-2 that I am an ant at a picnic, and it wouldn't mean a thing. I studied the SWR matter in depth eight years ago and I proved to myself that the claims that I have put forward are conceptually correct. JWR1945 has more recently analyzed the numbers in some depth and he has stated that "the Great SWR Debate is over and hocus has won. The technical support for this assertion is rock solid."

The support for my claims that is to be found in the data is never going to change, KenM. The historical data has all been recorded in a book and the book has been closed. We can extend the word games conducted here for 10 years and it will not change what the data says. The data will always say that intercst got the number wrong by a country mile. It will always say that the insight that I put forward on May 13, 2002, was a valuable and true one. It will always say that my detractors wasted the FIRE community's time with their word game posts and ridicule posts, that we should have been discussing the significance of that powerful insight from the first day and that the community has lost millions of dollars of accumulated capital because of the tangles it has gotten itself into in pretending either that changes in valuation do not affect SWRs (the REHP board dogma) or that what the data says does not matter in determining the SWR (the FIRE board dogma).

It may be that there are 15 hocus detractors on this board and 2 hocus supporters. If that is so, then there are 15 members of this board community who are either uninformed about how SWRs are determined or are responding to the poll question in a dishonest manner. The ones who are responding in a dishonest manner I am not concerned about; they are not Information Seekers, so I have no responsibilities in regard to them. The ones who are misinformed I do have a responsibility for. It is my job to try to inform them of the realities before the false information re SWRs that has been posted in the FIRE community ever since the day that intercst published his study causes them further losses of capital.

We all have a responibility to those misinformed posters. If they could have saved their FIRE plans by knowing the import of what I said in my May 13, 2002, post, but failed to come to understand it because there were people on the REHP board or this board playing games with words, then a serious injustice has been done to them. All of us will have to answer to them if (when?) that day comes. I have tried as hard as any human being possibly could be expected to try to overcome the effect of the word game and ridicule posts. I have made huge personal sacrifices in doing so. I saved large amounts of money for nine years so that I would be free to write a book when I had saved enough, and I have now put completion of that project off for over a year so that I could respond to community questions on this matter. If (when?) the day comes when we see serious financial losses result from the word games that were played here and at the Motley Fool board, I want to have a record to point to showing that I tried as hard as I could possibly try; someone is going to need to rebuild this movement from the ground up on that day and it looks like the Wave has seen fit to assign me the task. So I will continue to do what I am able to do. Anything beyond that is not in my power, so I try not to worry about it too much. I do what I am able to do to set this right, and I leave it to others to do what they elect to do.

If you ever have an interest in hearing the straight story re SWRs, without any of the word game and ridicule posts that have made it impossible to make sense of the question at this board, let me know, KenM, and I will have you as a Special Guest at the SWR board. I don't have the sense you think of yourself as an "expert" on this question, but we could have you as a sort of "everyman" poster, someone with some interest in the question who has been trying but failing to make sense of it given the way that the debate has been conducted here. Me and JWR1945 will spend two hours (or longer, if you like) going through every possible question you have until you are satisifed that you understand all the tricks that defenders of the conventional methodology have been playing on you.

If there is any other poster who would like to serve as an "everyman" Special Event guest, let me know, and I will handle the preparations. There is great power in understanding the realities of the SWR concept. The data-based SWR is the most valuable investing tool that I have ever discovered. Participating in a Special Event discussion would not only help you obtain huge financial benefits for yourself, it would help other community members who have tried to come to an understanding of this issue but who have been blocked in their efforts to do so. I hope that some community members will give it consideration, and that we will be able to set something up over at the other board that will permit for some constructive discussion of the SWR issue.

[raddr]

[[KenM]]

jwr

[[KenM]]

hocus
Unlike you, I have actually read all the studies I can find on SWRs, "invalid" or not. In the past, jwr very kindly and patiently helped me understand more. Similarly gummy also spent a lot of time and effort explaining things further. My views on SWRs can be summarised in my post dated Tue June 3

[JWR1945]

raddr:

[hocus]

I would consider it insulting if you are alleging that jwr, gummy, radrr, etc have conducted the debate on SWRs at this board in anything other than a rational, friendly and unbiased manner.

I do not believe that there is any one individual who is responsible for the board's problems. The board is comprised of a community of posters. Each post has some influence, either positive or negative, and the combination of the effects of all the posts defines the state of the board at any one particular point in time.
Boards are living things, acquiring their life from the community members who post to them. But they are separate living things from any of the posters.because no board reflects perfectly the views of any one poster. A board "statement" is always a joint statement not in precise accord with the statement of any of the posters who contributed to it.

Thanks for giving consideration to the idea of serving as a guest for a Special Event discussion at the SWR board, KenM.

[JWR1945]

KenM:

[raddr]

John,

Presented in context here is the last quote in your post:

[hocus]

I do think less of hocus' post now that I know that he did not originate the idea.

What is "the idea" of the post, in your view, raddr?

[BenSolar]

As I previously posted at TMF:

[A TMF poster wrote about reading the Terhorst's book]

[ataloss]

hi Bensolar, I would say that at least there isn't much new under the sun. Plagarism, in my view, requires the use of exactly the same words. Recycling ideas is different (and probably the basis of many academic careers)

_________________
Have fun.

Ataloss

[BenSolar]