NoFeeBoards.com!

Greetings all :)

raddr wrote:

Obviously this is not the case on the SWR research board and I won't be a part of it.

I hope everyone realizes that the SWR board is hocus's board. As long as that board conforms with the site rules he can run it any way he sees fit. Like raddr says anyone who has an issue with this can just abstain from participating there. The SWR board is not a reflection of my views or of NFB's. Whatever those views may be. In short it's an independent board just like the Badger Boys Board.(Which may not be long for this world if someone doesn't start posting soon. )

The rest of the boards here are NFB boards. As raddr puts it,

"Our fearless leader, ES, allows us to freely post thoughts that he clearly disagrees with."

On the FIRE board I'll make sure the spirit of the site is adhered to. On the rest of the NFB boards it will be the same. Unless something dastardly happens on an independent board I have no business interfering.

ElSupremo wrote: Greetings all :)

I hope everyone realizes that the SWR board is hocus's board. As long as that board conforms with the site rules he can run it any way he sees fit.

Hi ES,

Yes, I know you don't moderate the SWR board and hocus does. I won't participate on his board. 'Nuff said.

ataloss

I have admitted to not speaking or understanding hocusian discourse. Probably a deficiency on my part. I didn't understand him to be recommending reading the studies.

Then there is this astonishing indication that hocus has no idea of the methodology of the historical studies that he has been criticizing

I think that your post including the above quote summarises the position nicely. I'll have to remember which thread it's in. Although it's most unlikely I'll be "debating" with hocus again

petey

I shall get around to reading intercst's report. I shall then make up my mind on how much of it I accept. My opinion on it has been biased back & forth and I will read it & decide for myself.

I'm far from being a 100% defender of the REHP report (I have reservations about both this and other reports based on historical data - I also have reservations about some of Bernstein's stuff) but a debate on the issues should be rational. The amusing irony of the situation is, (and jwr will hopefully correct me if I'm wrong ) but jwr's recent work appears to use the same data and a similar methodology as intercst's report - so which bit of it is "invalid"

but jwr's recent work appears to use the same data and a similar methodology as intercst's report - so which bit of it is "invalid"

LOL, although I think the data is fine. The real issue is with interpretation of the result and application to the future (although hocus disagrees with me on this)

<sigh> Of course he does.

ataloss wrote: (although hocus disagrees with me on this)

KenM wrote: The amusing irony of the situation is, (and jwr will hopefully correct me if I'm wrong ) but jwr's recent work appears to use the same data and a similar methodology as intercst's report - so which bit of it is "invalid"

If I had to guess, the part that includes the data for which PE10 does not appear to correlate with SWR.

PITA