Joined: 10 Jun 2004
|Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 2:38 am Post subject: New E-Mail to Scott Burns
|Set forth below is the text of an e-mail that I sent this morning to Scott Burns:
In our previous correspondence re safe withdrawal rates (SWRs), I have not made mention of the Campaign of Terror being led by John Greaney against the discussion board community that has formed on the internet to share ideas on how to win financial freedom early in life. The Greaney matter is an exceedingly ugly matter, and my standard practice is to keep my focus on the substantive SWR issues to the extent possible.
There was a post put to the discussion board associated with Greaney's web site today by a poster who goes by the screen-name "Ataloss" In his post, Ataloss said that he has corresponded with you re the SWR matter and that you are "aware" of the Campaign of Terror. If this is indeed the case, there is no longer any point in me holding back on making reference to the matter. I believe that you can play an important role in bringing the Campaign of Terror to a close by writing the column on John Russell's SWR research sooner rather than later. There are many community members who respect your work and who would be influenced by a column from you comdemning both Greaney's REHP study and the tactics he has employed to block discussion of its flaws on internet discussion boards.
The Data-Based SWR Tool developed by Russell and I is a tool of great power, as you know. It has the potential to prevent thousands of busted retirements and to provide effective guidance to middle-class workers seeking financial freedom in life for many years to come. We have faced extremely difficult circumstances in helping community members learn about how the tool works. There have been many expressions of keen interest in learning about the tool. But death threats and other threats of physical violence put forward by Greaney and his supporters have caused many community members to feel fear of even participating in discussions of what the historical data really says. Greaney supporters have imposed a "boycott" on any discussion of Russell's work. The boycott has been enforced with threats of board bannings and smear campaigns against any who violate it.
I of course understand that you did not know the sort of person Greaney is when you endorsed his study. I of course also understand that you were not aware of the analytical flaws of the REHP study at that time. You are aware of both today. I believe that, given the role you have played in creating this monster, you have an obligation to come forward today and do what you can to free our community from his terrorist tactics. One column from you stating clearly that you no longer have confidence in Greaney's SWR claims and that you find merit in Russell's research would do a great deal of good.
If you have any questions re this matter, please feel free to ask. It is obviously a complicated matter with a long history, and my inclination is to spare you a detailed account. But if there are aspects of the question that you need to feel sure about before proceeding, I of course will be happy to provide you whatever information you need to feel completely comfortable in moving forward.