Not Enough Censorship

Research on Safe Withdrawal Rates

Moderator: hocus2004

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

Not Enough Censorship

Post by JWR1945 » Fri Mar 25, 2005 5:21 am

There is one area in which Hocus and I disagree. I favor censorship on discussion boards. Hocus is willing to tolerate almost anything. I prefer heavy censorship.

In spite of what you have read, Hocus has removed only one or two posts from this board. He has relocated a few posts, but very few.

I would prefer to remove Ataloss posts with their continual baiting, misrepresentations and distortions of facts. I would prefer to remove Beachbumz recent posts, which are no more than word games and stink bombs. I would prefer to remove Norbert Schlenker's posts in which he pushes a poorly thought out agenda while refusing to listen to what others have to say.

In spite of what you may have read, it is Hocus who allows a variety of thought, not the complainers such as Ataloss, Beachbumz and Norbert Schlenker. Regardless of what these people may assert, it is Hocus who talks straight. It is Hocus who accurately describes what has happened in the past.

Have fun.

John R.

unclemick
*** Veteran
Posts: 231
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 4:00 am
Location: LA till Katrina, now MO

In an ideal world

Post by unclemick » Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:03 am

I would prefer the long and short of it. Wherein the setup and run - including those 'long boring pointless' strings of numbers are posted. The abstract and conclusions can be put in another place where debate and the inevitible 'the world is flat' type statements can reside.

Long, long ago when I made beautiful quarterly presentations - there used to be this old NASA phart(Doc. S). "That's nice - but I want to see your data." Being a lab rat like myself - he actually came and looked thru the raw test sheets.

To repeat - since I have no financial planner or guru or leader - show me the data.

Being blockheaded - I'll make up my own mind.

beachbumz
** Regular
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 4:00 am
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL

Post by beachbumz » Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:48 am

JWR1945 wrote:Not Enough Censorship

There is one area in which Hocus and I disagree. I favor censorship on discussion boards. Hocus is willing to tolerate almost anything. I prefer heavy censorship.

In spite of what you have read, Hocus has removed only one or two posts from this board. He has relocated a few posts, but very few.

I would prefer to remove Ataloss posts with their continual baiting, misrepresentations and distortions of facts. I would prefer to remove Beachbumz recent posts, which are no more than word games and stink bombs. I would prefer to remove Norbert Schlenker's posts in which he pushes a poorly thought out agenda while refusing to listen to what others have to say.

In spite of what you may have read, it is Hocus who allows a variety of thought, not the complainers such as Ataloss, Beachbumz and Norbert Schlenker. Regardless of what these people may assert, it is Hocus who talks straight. It is Hocus who accurately describes what has happened in the past.

Have fun.

John R.
Well, now, there's one thing WE agree on! I understand now why Raddr banned both of you at the start. Please show me one time where I used 'word games'. Show me one time where I posted an inaccurate statement (or Norbert)! I don't mean one in which I challenge hocus' changing of definitions. You will notice in my posts that I wanted you to be able to continue your 'research' here, even if I don't agree with all of it. The problem is when anyone challenges hocus' or you with facts, you both go nuts! The only complainers here are YOU and hocus! I have read posts that theorize that YOU AND HOCUS are the same person...hmmmmm

Beachbumz
Life is Good.

Norbert Schlenker
* Rookie
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 4:00 am
Location: The Dry Side of the Wet Coast

Post by Norbert Schlenker » Fri Mar 25, 2005 7:07 am

JWR1945 wrote:I would prefer to remove X, Y, Z posts because ...
Translation: I am unable to respond to criticism of my methodological errors so I will try to garner sympathy by pretending that the criticism is of me instead.
unclemick wrote:I would prefer the long and short of it. Wherein the setup and run - including those 'long boring pointless' strings of numbers are posted. The abstract and conclusions can be put in another place where debate and the inevitible 'the world is flat' type statements can reside.
Conclusions should be backed up with data and the data should be available for inspection. Anyone capable and interested should be looking hard at the numbers. There are two dangers there, first for much of the audience, for whom tables of numbers cause instant MEGO. The second, which applies here in spades from what I have tried to wade through, is GIGO, which an old NASA hand should be intimately familiar with.

In the small piece that I have been able to read of what has been posted here, it seems to me that there has been a two step process whereby raw data has been distilled into formulae - where examination of the data and methodology is absolutely critical - and then the formulae have been used to generate projections. All the recently posted tables of numbers are from the second process and they are at best misleading and at worse complete nonsense if the formulae themselves are suspect.

But criticism of the formulae themselves and how they were derived is sacrilege here. The formulae apparently have the status of tablets handed down from on high to A Person Who Has Absolute Authority To Set The Terms Of The Debate Here. Asking for documentation of statistical validity or a pointer to a past demonstration of such is heresy and is either ignored or edited out of the record without trace.

A lab rat should be able to see instantly which of the two contending camps can't bear to have a little light shone on their work.
Great minds think alike. Fools seldom differ.

unclemick
*** Veteran
Posts: 231
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 4:00 am
Location: LA till Katrina, now MO

Post by unclemick » Fri Mar 25, 2005 7:53 am

I stand by my original post.

Not only that: it's my world that's round - all others are flat - and there is way more than two of them.

Heh, heh, heh, heh, heh.

MacDuff
* Rookie
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 8:20 pm
Location: Centralia, WA

Post by MacDuff » Fri Mar 25, 2005 10:38 am

JWR1945 wrote:Not Enough Censorship

There is one area in which Hocus and I disagree. I favor censorship on discussion boards. Hocus is willing to tolerate almost anything. I prefer heavy censorship.John R.
I agree completely. Without censorship, Gresham's Law takes over, and careful reasoned, polite discourse is driven out by bombast, over-simplification, and hostility.

Anonymity on these boards allows small minded cowards to take shots at their betters; and where else can that happen?

Mac

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

Post by ataloss » Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:19 pm

agree completely. Without censorship, Gresham's Law takes over, and careful reasoned, polite discourse is driven out by bombast, over-simplification, and hostility.

Anonymity on these boards allows small minded cowards to take shots at their betters; and where else can that happen?

Mac
good post hocus, lol

you have your wish you have destroyed the nfb
Have fun.

Ataloss

Post Reply