NoFeeBoards.com!

No Fees! No Ads! No Spam!

Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search NoFeeBoards.com! Forum Index

Tossing coins
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    NoFeeBoards.com! Forum Index » FIRE Board
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
wanderer
*** Veteran


Joined: 26 Nov 2002
Posts: 363
Location: anytown, usa

PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2003 10:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's no small accomplishment, in my view. Can you say the same re any posting initiative of your own?

I have posted on a variety of topics - key mental constructs leading to FIRE, my opposition to the Borking of debate on alternative investments, the trumping of economics by psychology, the economic and non-economic rewards of living and retiring overseas, the statistical inconclusiveness of the rehp study, etc. Our family is quite well off financially and numerous posters inquired about a variety of topics I touched on. And, as I recall, when i was making the case for recommending more diversified holdings to improve portfolio sustainability (due to human frailties), you were nowhere to be found.

So... why don't you take your bilushlt over to your board? You have a fabulous product. Build your site; they will come.



_________________
regards,

wanderer

The field has eyes / the wood has ears / I will see / be silent and hear
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus
Moderator


Joined: 02 Dec 2002
Posts: 435

PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2003 10:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So there's no record. Pity. ...Hocus has now hallucinated that it was not hocus' insensitivity that offended 1HF, but some desire to protect some internet third party who done hocus (the whole 'Wave') wrong. someone please verify this so that newcomers will know I'm not making this up.

Of course you are making it up. But don't be so sure there's not a record. You are the one who asked me to remove the post.. I am all but certain that I have a copy of your e-mail to me, and I think there's a chance that I have a copy of the post that I put up somewhere.

I'll make you a deal, wanderer. You make a promise to apologize to this board community for this smear, and I will go to the trouble of trying to track down the post.

take it elsewhere. please.

It's already been taken elsewhere, Wanderer. That part is done. All you have to do now is discipline yourself enough to stop bringing it up here.

Can you pull it off?


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BenSolar
*** Veteran


Joined: 25 Nov 2002
Posts: 242
Location: Western NC

PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2003 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hocus wrote:
I stopped posting at your board after being 'policed'.

Everyone is policed at the new board, Wanderer. I have made a commitment to the community that congregates there that I will shut down posters who engage in word game posts or ridicule posts. ... If you are going to post at the new board, you are under an obligation to post constructively. Them's the rules.


I believe that this post is roughly where wanderer was policed and soon thereafter decided to stop posting there. We were discussing some of JWR1945's interesting work, praising it, giving feedback, all the good things that happen on a message board when people are discussing a common interest. Then, along comes hocus with this gem of a 'constructive post':
Quote:
[ wanderer wrote: ]outstanding work JWR.

Wanderer:

It would have been better for the FIRE community in general and this site in particular if you had added something to the effect of: "I now see what hocus has been saying from the first day ... I hope that some on this board who have made unfair comments about him will come forward today with the appropriate apologies. As for myself, I wish that I had spoken up sooner when things started getting out of hand


and a bit later in that thread:
Quote:
A numbers guy has studied the data closely. He found that the data says what I said it said all along. No one else had ever said it. I did. I was right. I told the FIRE community the truth about SWRs and it was an important truth to tell.

Everyone benefits from the insight. I provided the insight. That's what happened. There's no charge. But a "thank you" would be nice.


This is, of course, long after pretty much everyone on this site has agreed that valuation affects SWR. And long after intercst had posted a graph showing the same relationship JWR did. Here's hocus claiming 'the insight', and demanding we thank him because now he was vindicated. Later, when challenged as to whether he originated the insight, he was apparently unable to track his contribution on the subject to before Bernstein explicitly laid it out in his 'Efficient Frontiers' web page.

Perhaps hocus should have then said, "Well, I guess we should thank Bernstein, maybe I didn't 'supply the insight', sorry for interrupting your discussion. Carry on." But he didn't. He carried on with the demanding of thanks and saying he was the greatest, best, first, most knowledgeable.

So it goes. I don't need that kind of ego being interjected into my discussions. So I will stay away, in general, from that board, though I do read John's posts there.



_________________
"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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wanderer
*** Veteran


Joined: 26 Nov 2002
Posts: 363
Location: anytown, usa

PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2003 10:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Of course you are making it up.

Do you have the post? Can we see it? Have you modified it like the time I started to respond to a post by JWR and the author morphed to hocus? Are you saying I should not have asked you to remove that post? Are you saying you think your post was a good idea?



_________________
regards,

wanderer

The field has eyes / the wood has ears / I will see / be silent and hear
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus
Moderator


Joined: 02 Dec 2002
Posts: 435

PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2003 10:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is, of course, long after pretty much everyone on this site has agreed that valuation affects SWR.

If everyone agreed that changes in valuation affect SWRs, there would have been no Great Debate, BenSolar. My claim in the May 13, 2002, post and those that followed from it was that changes in valuation affect the SWR, that the intercst study does not incorporate the effect of changes in valuation into the analysis, and that therefore the methodology that intercst used is invalid for purposes of calculating the SWR.

Are you now saying that you and all others at this board agree? If you and all others agree, there is no dispute.

The problem is that you do not agree. You yourself put up a poll at which the majority of the board said that investors using SWR analysis should make some sort of adjustment when valuation levels changes. The poll did not state that the methodology of the studies reporting inaccurate numbers is invalid.

There is a big difference between those two positions, BenSolar and that chasm is the source of friction on this board at this moment, as I perceive things.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus
Moderator


Joined: 02 Dec 2002
Posts: 435

PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2003 11:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Do you have the post? Can we see it?

I am not certain whether I have a copy of the post or not. It is possible that I have a copy somewhere. It would take some effort to dig it up, in the event that I have it. If you are willing to agree to make an apology for the smear, I am willing to go to the trouble to try to track it down.

Have you modified it like the time I started to respond to a post by JWR and the author morphed to hocus?

I have never modified any post that I have posted to any message board in my four year posting history. You're on a roll, Wanderer.

Are you saying I should not have asked you to remove that post? Are you saying you think your post was a good idea?

It was a constructive post. It was not a critically important post, however. I did not think that it was a big enough deal to justify arguing with you when you asked that I take it down, so I went along with the idea.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BenSolar
*** Veteran


Joined: 25 Nov 2002
Posts: 242
Location: Western NC

PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2003 11:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hocus wrote:
My claim in the May 13, 2002, post and those that followed from it was that changes in valuation affect the SWR, that the intercst study does not incorporate the effect of changes in valuation into the analysis, and that therefore the methodology that intercst used is invalid for purposes of calculating the SWR.

Are you now saying that you and all others at this board agree? If you and all others agree, there is no dispute.

I think that therealchips has cogently addressed your use of the word invalid. I'm with him on that issue. The study is not invalid in the normal sense of the word. Incomplete? Yes. Flawed to the point that it gives a number that isn't safe in some circumstances? Yes. Invalid? No. Perhaps we can say the numbers it produces are invalid when valuation is out of the range it covers. But the study itself?

The issue that John was addressing, and which we were discussing when you so rudely interrupted, was that the valuation/SWR relationship was even better when you look only at data post 1920. His research in no way showed the Trinity study to be invalid, any more than the graph that intercst published years ago showed that. So there you were, claiming the insight that John's data validated. John's data validated the valuation/SWR relation. One which Bernstien explicitly wrote about, and which we have a direct chain linking your early post on the subject to his writing.

As I said, there is a consensus on this board that the SWR is affected by valuation, at the very least the SWR is lowered when valuation is higher than seen in the historical record. Raddr posted studies on the MSN version of this board years ago explicitly looking at the issue. My poll was titled "SWR: adjust for high valuation, or at least note risk?" And the current tally is 9 yes, 1 no, 4 other/undecided. It was posted June 4th in an attempt to stop this endless 'Great Debate' junk. So it was rather strange to me that there you were, months later, claiming vindication and demanding thanks. We already knew what John was showing, he just refined it a bit. One could say his refinement is 'invalid' because it excludes 'valid' data. But I wouldn't say that, I'd say it is what it is.

My point is that 1) You came bursting into the discussion claiming an insight which we have zero evidence that you actually originated and which we have evidence that you got the insight from Bernstein, 2) You demanded thanks for that 'insight', 3) You berated people for not giving thanks and for not telling everyone that you are #1 and right, 4) This directly led to your board now having a population of 2 +/- the occasional passerby.



_________________
"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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BenSolar
*** Veteran


Joined: 25 Nov 2002
Posts: 242
Location: Western NC

PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2003 11:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hocus wrote:
It was a constructive post. It was not a critically important post, however. I did not think that it was a big enough deal to justify arguing with you when you asked that I take it down, so I went along with the idea.


Here is the thread

As I recall, the post hocus deleted was fairly appallingly out of place. He lambasted 1HappyFool for posting such a long piece, trying to make a point about how poorly intercst runs the REHP message board. He ends with 'just kidding'. That is what is called hijacking a thread. Very poor netiquette, and it detracted from 1HappyFool's introduction to the site, I thought.



_________________
"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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus
Moderator


Joined: 02 Dec 2002
Posts: 435

PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2003 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My point is that 1) You came bursting into the discussion claiming an insight which we have zero evidence that you actually originated and which we have evidence that you got the insight from Bernstein, 2) You demanded thanks for that 'insight', 3) You berated people for not giving thanks and for not telling everyone that you are #1 and right, 4) This directly led to your board now having a population of 2 +/- the occasional passerby.

You are wrong about much of what you say here, BenSolar.

1) I will put up a long post someday at the SWR board going into detail on what insights I offered first, what insights Bernstein offered first, and on what points the two of us have always been in agreement. I don't have time to prepare that post today. But it is simple common sense to see that, if I was saying nothing new, there would not have been tens of thousands of posts written in response to my May 13, 2002, post. At one point defenders of the conventional methodology were saying that my views sounded so strange that they were "irrational" and "loony." Now the claim is that they were so obvious that everyone knew all about them for years before me posting them. It can't be both. The reality is that defenders of the conventional methodology will say just about anything to avoid having to say what is true, that I got it right in my May 13, 2002, post and that the defenders of the conventional methodology got it wrong.

If what I had been saying is something that everyone knew yeara ago, people would have just offered a reference to the appropriate Bernstein quote, and said "thanks for reminding of us that, hocus. You don't generate tens of thousands of posts by reiterating something that someone else has been saying for years and that everyone already knows about. I mean, come on.

2) I did not "demand" thanks. I requested it. There was a lot of friction on the board at the time as a result of the Ataloss word game posts. My sense was that there were a number of posters looking for a way to defuse the tension that did not require that they directly ask <b<ataloss to stop the nonsense. I thought that <b<JWR1945's statement that the data vindicated me in my claims offered everyone a great opportunity to solve the problem with minimal muss and fuss.

If several posters came forward with the appropriate thanks to me for hanging in there so long defending the insight that had finally been vindicated by the numbers guy (it had been vindicated conceptually a long time before that), it might well have brought all the friction to an end. I thought it was a great opportunity for the board, and I think it is a shame that you and some others pissed it away, BenSolar What is it you think you gained by not thanking me for hanging in there and defending the insight all that time?

3) I berated no one. I berate no one today. I say that you made a mistake. I say that wanderer made a mistake,. I say that raddr made a mistake. Is saying that you made a mistake berating you? If you are that sensitive to criticism, how are we supposed to use a message board to learn togegether. Do you believe that the three of you are incapable of ever making a mistake?

4) The board has a population of two, but there have been more earth-shaking insights posted at that board in its first few months than have been posted at any other board I have ever heard of that early into its existence. We need to get more posters for the board to succeed in the long term, and I think that we will be able to do that when I have some time free up to address the problem. I don't expect that to happen until next year. But the board has been a smashing success thus far. The fact that you feel a need to berate it reveals where your head is at re this matter, and it is not a good place, in my view.

My poll was titled "SWR: adjust for high valuation, or at least note risk?" And the current tally is 9 yes, 1 no, 4 other/undecided. It was posted June 4th in an attempt to stop this endless 'Great Debate' junk.

I don't doubt that that was your intent, BenSolar. You have been making efforts to find a compromise between truth and falsehood on this matter for a long time now. I think these efforts of yours are in vain. At some point I think you are going to have to recognize that these attempts at splitting the difference do not work.

The SWR is a data-based construct. Either the conventional methodology studies get the number right or they get it wrong. You simply must accept this. The idea of studies is to get the number right, not to get it wrong, When a mthodology always gets the number wrong, it is time to junk that methodology. Really.

Ataloss had a poll in which he asked whether people thought that the conventional methodology was invalid, and the vote was just as strong in that poll that they methodology was not invalid as it was in yours that an adjustment is needed for valuation. So what good does this acceptance of the idea that valuation requires an adjustment do us? The goal is to have the conventional methodology declared invalid, and we are just not there yet, depsite the results of your poll. We are not even all that close, from the looks of things.

The study is not invalid in the normal sense of the word.

The methodology of the study is invalid in every possible sense of the word. It generates the wrong number every single time (except for the rare case in which the number is 4 percent just by pure coincidence). And there are times when it produces a number so far out of the ballpark that it causes a plan to be off by $1.5 million. That's not invalid? What in heck would you want to see before you would declare a methodology invalid?

His research in no way showed the Trinity study to be invalid, any more than the graph that intercst published years ago showed that.

Here are links to two posts by JWR1945.

http://www.nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=1224

In this one, he states that: " The Great SWR Debate is over. hocus has won. The technical evidence supporting this assertion is rock solid. "

and

http://www.nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=1217

In this one, he states: "In a very real sense, the traditional Safe Withdrawal Rates based on historical sequences are not valid for estimating any individual Year's Safe Withdrawal Rate."

JWR1945's views on SWRs are not precisely in accord with my own. But I have no problem saying that his views are reasonable. I do not find your views reasonable, BenSolar.

Intercst got the number wrong in a study that he posted to the FIRE community, and he refused to correct the error when it was pointed out to him. And your response is to say, "yes, the number is way off, but analysts should just go on misleading investors on this point, it is up to the investors using the studies to know that the authors are just kidding around when they say that they looked at the data re what is safe, and it is up to the investors themselves to study the data if they want to know what the SWR really is."

What????

If all the burden is on the people using the studies to figure out various adjustments so that they know what the number is, what is the point of having researchers prepare studies. Why not just ask the researchers to look a the data and report the correct number in the first place. Doesn't that make a lot more sense than this idea that you have that researchers should report the wrong number and investors should go about the business of determining the right number by making a series of adjustments?

It is up to the researcher performing the analysis to make a reaosonable effort to get the numbers right. Once a methodology has been shown beyond any reasonable doubt to always produce the wrong answer to the question posed, it is time to retire that methodology to the trashbin of history. That's my take, anyway, and I am confident that I can convince a lot of the big names in the field that that take is correct and that yours is dangerously misguided.

People who read studies that purport to be based on historical data have a right to trust that the people who prepared those studies actually took the data into account--not some of it, all of it. Researchers are human like the rest of us. When they make mistakes, we should forgive them for it. But the process of forgiveness cannot begin until the researchers are willing to own up to the mistakes that they have made and to the financial damage that was done to the people who took their false claims seriously.

Many people who aspire to achieve financial independence early in life have suffered serious life setbacks as a result of this invalid methodology, and it seems likely that many more will suffer serious life setbacks from it in days to come. I am going to do what I can to bury this methodology so that it never does any more harm to people making use of the the SWR analytical tool. I love the SWR concept. I think it is a tool of great power. I hate studies that get it wrong and cause retirement plans to go bust as a result.

I'm only one person, but I am going to fight hard. I believe that in a year's time there will be a good number of others fighting alongside me on this. Perhaps you will thank me then, BenSolar. Perhaps not. Either way, I am going to continue to lead the fight. It is the most important work that anyone concerned about the future of the FIRE movement can do, in my view.

I invite anyone looking for an exciting challenge to join JWR1945 and me in the work we are doing at the SWR board. We have only just begun, so this is a chance to get in on the ground floor before the rush hits. I don't think that anyone who signs up for the adventure will ever live to regret doing so. The feeling of satisfaction that comes from knowing that you have helped hundreds or even thousands of people achieve financial independence years earlier than they otherwise could have hoped to is worth more than money can buy. At least that's been my experience.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ElSupremo
Admin Board Member


Joined: 21 Nov 2002
Posts: 343
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2003 12:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Greetings FIRE folk Smile

Well I guess agreeing to disagree is right out the window here. Laughing Without trying to offend anyone I need to say that it's pretty obvious that hocus and John are in the minority. To say that all SWR discussion should take place on the SWR board is out of line. This board is the main FIRE board and SWR is a major FIRE subject.

I'd also point out that raddr and ataloss are two of the most informed folks I know on almost any subject that has to do with personal investing. To say otherwise is naive. To say they don't contribute is even more so. Confused

I've tried to read most of this thread although it's been difficult. I commend everyone on their obvious attempts at civility. I think it might be time to let this thread die a quite death.

Oh BTW, if anyone wants to mess with ataloss or raddr they will have to deal with me as well. Although I try to stay as neutral as possible this is something I won't tolerate. I'll ignore anything previously said in this thread but consider this fair warning.



_________________
"The best things in life are FREE!"

www.nofeeboards.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
hocus
Moderator


Joined: 02 Dec 2002
Posts: 435

PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2003 12:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

He lambasted 1HappyFool for posting such a long piece, trying to make a point about how poorly intercst runs the REHP message board.

I did no such thing, as you would know if you read the link you posted.

Here are some of my words from that link:

I believe that OneHappyFool knows that he has long been a favorite of mine as well, going back to the Glory Days of the REHP board in 2000. I had been reading Intercst's "justification" for slamming JWR1945 for posting "too long" and couldn't resist the chance to show how destructive such a posting style is to the Learning Together experience. I don't want anyone getting any funny ideas that I meant any of that nonsense.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus
Moderator


Joined: 02 Dec 2002
Posts: 435

PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2003 1:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh BTW, if anyone wants to mess with ataloss or raddr they will have to deal with me as well. Although I try to stay as neutral as possible this is something I won't tolerate. I'll ignore anything previously said in this thread but consider this fair warning.

I will "mess" with no one, ES. I am a straight shooter and always have been, as you know.

That said, I have a responsibility to point out to the FIRE community when posters put up word game posts and ridicule posts, which in my view do great damage to the community that congregates here to learn about the subject matter.

Are you saying in the words above that there are special rules that apply at this site to raddr and Ataloss, that they are exempt from the rules of civility that apply to others?


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
peteyperson
**** Heavy Hitter


Joined: 26 Nov 2002
Posts: 525

PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2003 2:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wanderer,

Thank you for taking the time to post how your allocation changed. I'm sure many found that of great value.

It is interesting that both at the beginning of 1999 and 2003 you have a rough allocation of 30% to international/emerging market stock and that your REITS rode up and then down over that period to settle back at previous levels like you indicated previously, 30/30/30 domestic/international/reits approx.

I notice you seperate out Asia Pacific from Emerging Markets. Is the Asia Pacific proportion the nations known as the ' 4 Tigers ' and everything else Asia located is considered EM and in the EM banding?

Petey
wanderer wrote:
petey -

Well, alignment is a problem, but here are the %s in each class from 1999 to now (2003). Partly we buy what looks cheaper; partly we do what is necessary in order to permit us to say, "Adios" to paid employment (e.g. pay down mtge). We redeployed in 2001 and 2002 (sold some US LCG, EM, Asia/Pacific) which probably reduced the carnage in US LCG by maybe 25%-30%). Hard to tell from here, but some of the percentage declines related to other classes doing much better (than US LCG), too. Our ex-US purchases were particularly judicious (in early 2003).

Real Estate/REITs 30.1% 47.6% 50.2% 50.8% 37.3%
US large cap 29.3% 26.6% 17.1% 12.0% 11.9%
US mid cap 1.5% 0.0% 0.4% 1.1% 1.0%
US small cap 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.7% 1.3%
Junk bonds 0.0% 0.0% 14.5% 22.8% 20.2%
Emerging Markets 7.4% 1.4% 0.9% 0.6% 2.3%
Asia/Pacific 13.1% 8.7% 6.4% 4.5% 8.2%
Europe 9.2% 7.0% 4.3% 2.8% 10.0%
Cash 4.2% 2.0% 4.4% 3.9% 7.4%
Other 0.4% 2.9% 1.5% 0.8% 0.4%
TOTAL 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
peteyperson
**** Heavy Hitter


Joined: 26 Nov 2002
Posts: 525

PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2003 2:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have to 100% agree with raddr's sentiments here. Some interesting posts have now been taken over by lengthy posts by hocus trying yet again to settle some kind of score. It detracts from the thread and I for one am having trouble finding the meat from the bones. So far all I've managed to do is reply to wanderer thanking him for providing data that is helpful to all.

I simply cannot explain away as pure coincidence how hocus has managed to irritate people both on the REHP board and those who left for calmer more interesting waters, and now surely managed to get on their nerves too. Crying or Very sad

Petey
raddr wrote:
JWR1945 wrote:
I am hacked off with raddr, wanderer and some others. You have been looking for a fight for the sake of having a fight. You are going out of your way to be offended.


John,

I disagree. I'm sorry you feel this way but as far as I'm concerned you and hocus can have your own little party at the SWR board and I won't interfere. All I ask, however, is just leave the rest of us alone over here. And I don't think I'm the only one that feels like this, either.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ElSupremo
Admin Board Member


Joined: 21 Nov 2002
Posts: 343
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2003 2:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Greetings hocus Smile
Quote:
which in my view do great damage to the community that congregates here to learn about the subject matter.

With all due respect, I have seen no evidence of that.
Quote:
Are you saying in the words above that there are special rules that apply at this site to raddr and Ataloss, that they are exempt from the rules of civility that apply to others?

I re-read my post several times and for the life of me I can't figure out how you came up with that idea. Confused The rules apply to everyone equally. Raddr and ataloss are friends, and hopefully so are you. But to be honest a few of the statements made about them are way, way off base. All I'm saying is I don't want to see any more of that. Simple enough?



_________________
"The best things in life are FREE!"

www.nofeeboards.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
peteyperson
**** Heavy Hitter


Joined: 26 Nov 2002
Posts: 525

PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2003 2:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hocus's suggestion is completely unworkable. It is another step towards an attempt to take the recognition for any "work" towards FIRE financial planning. Moving SWR discussions solely to his boards brings the discussion under his moderated control.

raddr IMHO is one of the most on the ball posters on the FIRE board. I always read his posts with interest. I support raddr's objections to hocus's idiotic idea.

Petey
raddr wrote:
hocus wrote:

I personally think that the easiest way to divide things is to have SWR discussions at the new board and to have non-SWR discussions here.


Absolutely not. I was posting SWR material at this board long before you got kicked off TMF and landed here as your second choice. I will continue to post SWR research here and you can do the same on your board. Frankly, I have zero interest in your board and rarely even peek in anymore. Remember also that this is the FIRE board so SWR discussions are well within the scope of this board.

Here's my proposal: I promise not to post anything at your board if you'll agree to leave us alone here. Deal?


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
raddr
*** Veteran


Joined: 25 Nov 2002
Posts: 265

PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2003 2:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ElSupremo wrote:
I re-read my post several times and for the life of me I can't figure out how you came up with that idea. Confused The rules apply to everyone equally. Raddr and ataloss are friends, and hopefully so are you. But to be honest a few of the statements made about them are way, way off base. All I'm saying is I don't want to see any more of that. Simple enough?


Hi ES,

Thanks for jumping in and providing support. This board is such a great resource for all of us and I hate to see TMF-type squabbles erupt here. Frankly, I don't think that myself, ataloss, or wanderer are to blame either. I know that as always you will deal with these issues in the fairest way possible.

I also must say that I re-read your post too and am appalled at hocus' suggestion that you are playing favorites here. That is a slap in the face to you as far as I am concerned and I don't appreciate seeing my buddies abused here.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
hocus
Moderator


Joined: 02 Dec 2002
Posts: 435

PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2003 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A few of the statements made about them are way, way off base. All I'm saying is I don't want to see any more of that. Simple enough?

Are you talking about statements put forward by me or by someone else?

Can you say what statements it is that you are concerned about?


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus
Moderator


Joined: 02 Dec 2002
Posts: 435

PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2003 3:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I support raddr's objections to hocus's idiotic idea.

Actually, it was raddr's idea, Pete. I was just saying that I thought he was on the right track in suggesting it, but that I thought that working out the details was going to be difficult.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wanderer
*** Veteran


Joined: 26 Nov 2002
Posts: 363
Location: anytown, usa

PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2003 4:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am not certain whether I have a copy of the post or not. It is possible that I have a copy somewhere. It would take some effort to dig it up, in the event that I have it. If you are willing to agree to make an apology for the smear, I am willing to go to the trouble to try to track it down.

es, do you have a copy of every post? maybe 1HF recalls what hocus posted. Maybe someone else here recalls the facts and circumstances?

I have never modified any post that I have posted to any message board in my four year posting history.

That would be consistent with my assertion that the author of the post I saw changed from jwr to hocus.

so now it's, ataloss, raddr, wanderer, bensolar have it wrong, i guess.[/i]



_________________
regards,

wanderer

The field has eyes / the wood has ears / I will see / be silent and hear
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    NoFeeBoards.com! Forum Index » FIRE Board All times are GMT - 9 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
Designed for Trushkin.net | Styles Database