NoFeeBoards.com!

No Fees! No Ads! No Spam!

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

Congratulations
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    NoFeeBoards.com! Forum Index » Town Center
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
th
** Regular


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 84
Location: Northern CA

PostPosted: Sat Jul 03, 2004 12:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whoo another stream of consciousness.

I'll just dab in the middle.

You say I'm wrong about the very mutual feelings regarding you and intercst. I said you might want to re-evaluate and ponder further on that.

I asked a forensic psychologist to read several of your posts regarding intercst. While reading internet postings isnt a particularly exact science, the conclusion was that there is a very obvious and very distinct and very mutual dislike that has degraded to an unworkable status. You hate the guy. He hates you. And that you either dont perceive it or you are aware of it and are simply denying. I didnt need a pro to see that.

To be fair, in your absence Intercst is a fairly irrelevant character. I read his stuff, found some value, found some stuff I didnt like or agree with. Other than that he hardly participates when you arent the topic of discussion.

What isnt and wont ever be productive is your Jihad. Hardly anybody cares anymore. People are so focussed on the blowing up of large buildings and decapitations that the root issues are lost and we're simply addressing symptoms.

I found your participation at Dory's board to be pleasant and contributory. Mostly because this SWR topic wasnt brought up much, nor its associated Jihad.

Your participation here has been effectively a neutron bomb. Admittedly a chunk of the posters here decried, planted and set the bomb off themselves in your honor, which is unfortunate.

Its really too late in the cycle to make this discussion productive, and in the presence of denial (not the river in egypt), its unlikely to ever turn productive. However, I found an interesting piece of advice in an old movie "disclosure". In that movie, one character was so focussed on the interpersonal issues and subversive attacks made by another that he lost sight of the real issues. He was reminded to stop playing in the emotional battlefield where no wars are won, and to focus on the business issues at hand. When he did that, he found the leverage he needed to win the war.

Of course, that movie was rendered unbelievable the minute the plot suggested that virtually any dude wouldnt let demi moore jump on them.

So my advice to you is to acknowledge the anger you hold for greaney and let it go. Take the time to write posts that fit on one screen and clearly make a point. Address the issues and concerns that have been brought up, because I certainly raised several that were more than "slogans". Understand and acknowledge that this isnt a black and white thing, and it isnt even clean shades of gray. There is no right and wrong, only gradients of wrongness because there is no way to get it right all the time, or even most of the time...or even a lot of the time.

My advice to everyone else: if you think this guy is a troll, please stop feeding him. If you think the guy is a troll, running off and taking your considerable knowledge away from the community has simply given him exactly what he wants. Petulance and group frustration has and will simply feed the beast.

On the other hand, if he's simply a long winded angry man hoping to make some money off a book, how hard is that to ignore?



_________________
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. - Nietzsche
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus2004
Moderator


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Sat Jul 03, 2004 3:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"I found your participation at Dory's board to be pleasant and contributory."

Every post that I have ever put up has been pleasant and constructive. Unless you happen to consider it not pleasant and constructive for a poster to ask the community to deal realistically with the intercst problem.

There are some who don't like the fact that I called intercst on his nonsense. The fact of the matter is that I went three years without calling him on it, and started calling him on it only when things had reached such a state that the only way to save the board was with a Hail Mary pass. I did what I had to do when things reached a point where every other option was closed to me.

The pass was caught in the end-zone. My May 13, 2002, post did indeed bring the board back to life, it did indeed raise people's hopes that honest and informed on-topic posting would once again be permitted. The community spoke out loud and clear that it wanted to be permitted to discuss the realities of what the historical data says re SWRs.

There was nothing "gray" about it, TH. The community spoke in black and white terms. When you have 90-plus community members voting in favor of something not once, but scores of times, that's as black and white as it gets.

Those 90-plus people are going to get the board experience they asked for. If you have a realistic proposal for giving it to them that does not require intercst's removal, you are free to put it forward. If it makes sense and shows promise, you may end up a hero. I'll be the first to shake your hand if you pull it off.

But I have searched my brain trying to come up with alternatives, and I have not been able to do so. If I had been able to come up with a realistic alternative, I never would have put forward the November 2002 post seeking revocation of intercst's posting privileges. I have every reason in the world to want to bring this to resolution.

It is not resolution for us all to pretend that William Bernstein and Rob Arnott and Robert Shiller and JWR1945 and raddr and BenSolar and Andrew Smithers and Ed Easterling and Peter Bernstein and hocus and Biggaloot and all the others who have looked at various aspects of this question are all mentally ill and that intercst, who is qualified to speak on this subject on the grounds that he is some guy who posts stuff on the internet, is the only one who has ever gotten it right. That I cannot buy.

People can't stop posting about it because it matters, TH. You saying that it is a tempest in a teapot does not make it so. These boards matter. SWRs matter. To get people to stop posting about it, you need to bring it to resolution. To bring it to resolution, you need to solve the problem.

The problem isn't hocus, and the problem isn't TH, and the problem isn't JWR1945, and the problem isn't ES, and the problem isn't ataloss, and the problem isn't wanderer, and the problem isn't galeno, and the problem isn;'t raddr, and the problem isn't dory36 and the problem isn't bpp.

The problem is intercst.

Do you have a solution to the problem that you would like to put forward for the community's consideration?


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
th
** Regular


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 84
Location: Northern CA

PostPosted: Sat Jul 03, 2004 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think I already did.

But clearly its indigestible.

Good luck...



_________________
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. - Nietzsche
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JWR1945
***** Legend


Joined: 26 Nov 2002
Posts: 1697
Location: Crestview, Florida

PostPosted: Sun Jul 04, 2004 3:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

th
Quote:
This is why I stopped supporting you Hocus. Besides your system having some holes in it and your stream of consciousness posts too long for any human being to want to read...

I need to correct a misunderstanding. Your assertion is false. You have not shown what you claim. You misstated our findings at the SWR Research Group discussion board.

You have mentioned previously that you are not interested in the subject of Safe Withdrawal Rates. I have respected your wishes. I have left your comments alone because doing otherwise would have required dragging you back to the issue. It would also have required an extended series of long posts, something else that you wish to avoid.

Have fun,

John R.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
th
** Regular


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 84
Location: Northern CA

PostPosted: Sun Jul 04, 2004 1:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My assertion is 100% true.

Your "system" kept people out of equities during the 1996-2000 run-up, the largest in history.

It didnt tell people to buy them in 2002 just before a 30+% run-up.

Your "system" presumes the ability to predict short term market movements and relys on consuming ones principal while taking small and predictable returns from low risk asset classes. Perfect for someone in their 70's and up. Not so good for someone that doesnt have a specific date in mind to die.

It cannot predict the short to mid term future of any variably priced instrument as their returns are substantially affected for better and for worse by random and unpredictable events, not mathematical formulas or "systems".

Thats why it wont work for most people. But you can have your opinion...once again we need to identify the difference between opinion and fact. Its your opinion that this is a workable system for a lot of people. The facts are that its workable for some, but has a lot of considerations for most that wont be acceptable.

I'm not interested in SWR's because I take what I need to live, in an amount that supports the lifestyle that I wish to live in, and plan my investing to maintain my principal. If I'm unable to do that, I'll work to make up the gap. I'm not taking any "magic number" because neither I, nor anyone else, can predict the future. You plan your plan, work your plan, and replan as things happen.

But while I'm not terribly interested in the topic, that doesnt stop me from recognizing a couple of guys who are believing their own bullpuckey. Thats if you even believe it, since one of you isnt living off "the system" and the other missed out on significantly improving his portfolio size twice. Everyone else that has been alleged to be using your "system" has said they arent.

The good news is there IS some useful information in your "research". In ones planning, one should consider valuations. Value investing is a good idea. Inflation adjusted assets are worthwhile to own, at least in part. However thats hardly "new" information or something you uncovered.

The bad news is that your town crier has made himself a pariah, and in between faint claims and a predominant focus on interpersonal issues, I dont think anyone really cares much or even wants to pay much further attention to it.



_________________
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. - Nietzsche
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JWR1945
***** Legend


Joined: 26 Nov 2002
Posts: 1697
Location: Crestview, Florida

PostPosted: Sun Jul 04, 2004 3:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

th
Quote:
My assertion is 100% true.

Your "system" ..

False. We have no system. You have mentioned one approach. We do not limit ourselves to one approach.

Here are two examples of our investigations into successful alternative approaches.

Dividend Based Strategies dated Wed, Jul 30, 2003.
http://nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=1214

From Intrinsic Value dated Fri, Aug 01, 2003.
http://nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=1220

You have much to read before making your assertions. One thing that you need to know is what we mean by Safe Withdrawal Rates. Clearly, you do not know. Coming up with a good definition was not easy, but it is absolutely essential for clarity. Otherwise, we end up with nonsense posts that prove points by changing definitions. [That has been used frequently as a tactic by those who wish to disrupt our investigations.] Start with the following thread. There have been refinements since.
Summary Thread: SWR Definition dated Sun, Jul 13, 2003.
http://nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=1107

There is more than one withdrawal strategy that we look at. You have been confused because you have only considered what we look at most frequently. We have generally adopted conditions similar to those investigated by others.

This explains why we typically look at 30-year time frames.
http://www.nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=18024#18024

Start reading our research and find out how we came up with our conclusions. Then make your observations.

John R.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
th
** Regular


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 84
Location: Northern CA

PostPosted: Sun Jul 04, 2004 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I read plenty of your stuff. Admittedly, I skipped through some of the eye bleedingly long and meandering stuff, but I read enough.

I stand by what I said.

There is no such thing as a "safe" withdrawal rate. Since we cannot determine the future, multiple asset class portfolios could do almost anything based on a nearly unlimited and uncollated series of unpredictable and random events. Limited asset class portfolios with predictable returns and low volatility will be eaten by inflation and expenses and you will die eating dog food. Unless you have a huge portfolio in which case this entire dialogue is meaningless.

So like any fruit from a poisoned tree, exploration of the rest of this "system" simply isnt feasible.

There is a historic safe withdrawal rate. It is real, it is calculable. It is interesting from an academic perspective to see how a mix of assets would have done historically. Its probably not entirely ridiculous to think a portfolio that survived any 30 year period in the past might make it through the next 30, but not a sure thing. I will cede that starting with very high valuations at the beginning of the 30 year period might lessen the likelihood of survival. Perhaps considerably.

The problem is you guys are trying to put a framework around something that absolutely defies framing.

Your "system" if followed would have prevented my ER. If I started listening in 2002 it would have cost me a third of my portfolio and I'd be thinking about going back to work. If I bought into the advice to buy 2.5% tips and eat my portfolio to fulfill my spending needs I'd be cracking open cans of alpo with at least 10 years left to live according to my Historic Genealogical Survival Rate (HGSR).

Hence it's already failed and the advice wouldnt work.

As a result of this and the apparently failed Jihad, I dont think you're going to get much traction for these ideas.

Perhaps it'd be better if you guys got a hobby or something and enjoyed your retirement?

I mean, it really IS a tempest in a teapot. The worst thing that happens is someone screws it up or doesnt have enough money or we suffer major economic setbacks and ya have to go back to work.

If you're smart, you've disposed of your debt and you arent dragging a mortgage around. Working 20 hours a week to pay the monthly bills and put food on the table is hardly a death sentence.

But you're welcome to disagree. Just dont suggest I'm incorrect or dont understand. My opinions just happen to differ. The facts are pretty obvious.



_________________
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. - Nietzsche
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JWR1945
***** Legend


Joined: 26 Nov 2002
Posts: 1697
Location: Crestview, Florida

PostPosted: Sun Jul 04, 2004 6:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For th:

You are straining the limits of credibility when you say:
Quote:
Since we cannot determine the future..

There is such a discipline as probability and statistics. There is such a thing as making reasonable projections. There is such a thing as identifying cause and effect. It is ludicrous to assume that the future will be entirely unlike the past. In addition, we are the ones who have rejected claims of 100% certainty. It is not the other way around.

The dire situation that you have described has happened. We have addressed it. It turned out well. The fallacy underlying your line of thought is insisting that TIPS would have yielded only 2.5%.
A Recent Email Exchange from Fri, Jun 11, 2004.
http://www.nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=2594

However, if you are insisting that your starting balance was not viable in 2002 without the spectacular 30% run up last year, then you did not start with a safe balance. You were lucky. Probability and statistics allow for the possibility of lucky outcomes.

You continue to misstate make specifics. For example, your complaint about:
Quote:
Limited asset class portfolios..
is a limitation of our calculators, but not of our research. You have not absorbed enough of what is written to support your assertions.

John R.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JWR1945
***** Legend


Joined: 26 Nov 2002
Posts: 1697
Location: Crestview, Florida

PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2004 2:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

For th:

Here is an example of how you have made a serious error.

When I suggest a TIPS based alternative to the standard approach, you claim that I am cannibalize the nest egg. That is supposed to mean that my alternative approach is bad.

The most frequently examined problem has a final balance of zero. An apples to apples comparison with the standard approach requires using a final balance of zero. When that is done, the TIPS based alternative produces a higher Safe Withdrawal Rate.

Now let us examine the two approaches when the final balance is the same as the initial balance plus inflation. The standard approach allows for a withdrawal rate close to the initial dividend yield. [Based on the 1966 sequence, the requirement for withdrawals to match inflation causes the safe withdrawal rate to be even lower!] Using the standard approach today leaves you with a withdrawal rate between 1.5% and 2.0%.

If you buy TIPS on the secondary market with a 2.5% yield to maturity (in an appropriately tax sheltered account), you can withdraw 2.5% for close to 30 years without touching principal. The safe withdrawal rate is higher with the TIPS based alternative when you make an apple to apples comparison.

Have fun.

John R.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus2004
Moderator


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2004 3:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Just dont suggest I'm incorrect or dont understand. My opinions just happen to differ. The facts are pretty obvious."

You are right that the facts that matter re SWRs are pretty darn obvious. The SWR is a mathematical construct. You add up numbers to get an answer. Two plus two equals four and not eight. So intuitively you wouldn't think it would be too hard to bring this thing to resolution.

The reality is that things are just the opposite of what you would intuitively expect. Say that the SWR was not a mathematical construct. If that were so, then intercst could just say as you say above that his opinions differ from those of Bernstein and every other analyst other than intercst who has looked at the matter, and we could live together in peace.

It is BECAUSE we are dealing with a mathematical construct that this thing cannot be brought to resolution without intercst being evicted from the community. The numbers do not support the intercst claims. The intercst claims are so far off the mark that there is no way that the numbers can be manipulated so as to lend any credibility to his claims. In order for intercst to continue to maintain credibility in his claims, he is required to say that black is white, to engage in deliberate deception. He has no other options.

Now, the normal scenario is that the researcher who discovers he has gotten a number wrong in a study corrects the error. I presume that we all agree that that would have been the easy way to have brought this thing to a successful resolution. Intercst was asked to do that hundreds of times and refused to do so. So that is out.

What's left? The only thing left is deception. The problem with using deception to block reasoned debate on this particular question is that the question is so important to so many people that it keeps bobbing to the surface again and again. Team Intercst thinks it has shut the thing down, and then Peter Bernstein gives a speech discussing the realities, or Rob Arnott writes an article in a journal discussing the realities, or Andrew Smithers puts something up on his web site discussing the realities. So a new round of deception is called for.

There comes a time when the community has suffered through so many rounds of deception that it just can't stand any more. That's where we were in August 2002 when Markr33 read the "What Bernstein Says" post and put forward the suggestion that Team Intercst stop putting forward further ridicule and attack posts and that we work together as a community to resolve our differences in reasonable ways.

That's when galeno put forward the threats of physical violence against anyone who dared to post in an honest and informed way on this matter. That's when intercst endorsed "the galono prescription." That's when the Motley Fool board died, as all of its effective on-topic posters found other things to do with their time than to lend the weight of their credibility to that board.

There are a number of fine posters from the NFB site who had seen the Motley Fool community burned to the ground and did not want to see the same thing happen here. So they made clear when I came to this board commnity that I was very much welcomed here so long as I did not post in an honest and informed manner on the intercst question. I did not take the hints. Having seen what I saw happen at Motley Fool, I felt that I had a responsibility to make the community aware of the deceptions being practiced on them, and I posted in accord with that responsibility.

The more deceptions we practice, the more harm we do to ourselves. There is a certain mathematical rigor to that equation too. The answer is not more deception, TH. The answer is to cut out the deception at the root so that the rest of us can get back to the business we came here for, the reasoned examination of stratagies for achieving financial independence early in life.

Please think it over, TH. You can pull us a bit deeper into the darkness or you can pull us a bit in the direction of the light. Your posts matter. Make them count for the good.

It can only turn out one way, TH. Your options are to bring it to resolution now or to stretch it out. What constructive purpose is served by stretching it out?


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
th
** Regular


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 84
Location: Northern CA

PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2004 8:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You guys still dont get it. By the way, re-read my last post and your responses. You asserted I said several things I never said, and argued against points I never made. I think the problem you two have with the various on-line communities is becoming clearer by the day.

One of you wants to wrap mathematical constructs around predicting movements that are driven by psychological and random events.

Good luck with that.

The other is embroiled in personal issues that are unrelated to the topic, but has convinced himself that they're closely intertwined. And he cant make a point in 3000 sentences or less.

Good luck with that too.

I'll stick with exactly what I said.

You cant predict the future and in the absence of a huge portfolio, there is no such thing as a "safe" withdrawal rate. Further, there is no need to do either of these things. With a well balanced investing approach and a good life strategy, you dont need to predict anything, nor do you need "safety".

All else is diseased fruit of a poisoned tree.

When we worked, we didnt spend endless hours tediously trying to determine our "safe income rate". We worked the best job we knew how and lived within the means of that income. If we couldnt sustain a desired lifestyle we got a better paying or extra job, or went to school to learn how to get a better paying job.

It is absolutely no different in early retirement. Work the best investment strategy you can comprehend, that you feel comfortable with. Live within the means of the income and growth it throws off. If you cant live within those means, go back to work or learn more about investing.

If you find yourself spending more time in ER trying to figure out your withdrawal rate, expenses and investment approach than you spent in real life working on your income and budgets...somethings wrong...you need a hobby.

There is no 'leading away from the light'. I think I already found the light. To wit:

Do your reading. Choose an investment strategy that appeals to you and fits with your skills. Dont buy snake oil. Dont trust anyone with a "system" or that tells you they know whats going to happen, especially if they arent using their own advice or arent succeeding with it. Keep your expenses low in life and in your investments...but live comfortably and in the style in which you wish. Keep your debts low or zero. Implement and maintain your investing and living strategy. Keep it if it works for you or try another. There are always 1000 "experts" for and 1000 against any strategy. None of them are right or wrong, depending on the time frame you choose, but some are more right or wrong than others. If all else fails go back to work.

If at any point in time you think you know whats going to happen, you dont. If you're spending more than you're taking in, your portfolio might expire before you do. You will probably live longer than your last two generations due to improved medical care and breakthroughs. If your strategy isnt somewhat self sustaining without eating principal, you need more principal and you should go back to work while you still have vigor and intact skills.

Its not rocket science guys. Y'all are chasing a mythical dragon with butterfly nets and a lot of determination. But its still mythical and even if it isnt, you arent gonna get it with a butterfly net.

Along the way, you're being long winded, argumentative, insulting, dismissive and aggravative. Which doesnt excuse the childish behavior of some of the people on the "other side of the table".

Still a tempest in a teapot. The more I think on it, the smaller the teapot gets.

G'day...



_________________
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. - Nietzsche
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus2004
Moderator


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2004 9:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

"You cant predict the future and in the absence of a huge portfolio, there is no such thing as a "safe" withdrawal rate."

You and I are in agreement on the most important question of substance, TH. When you say that "there is no such thing as a safe withdrawal rate," you are saying that the study published at RetireEarlyHomePage.com is analytically invalid. You are saying that that study makes dangerous and unsupportable claims re what withdrawal rate will work. One of my primary goals is to protect the community from the financial ruin that the continued propagation of those dangerous and unsupportable claims is likely to bring about.

We disagree re the validity of the data-based SWR tool. But that does not concern me too much. I do not find it unreasonable that some community members are thus far unpersuaded of the merits of the new tool. We need to have a lot more discussions of the new tool before we can reasonably expect a majority of community members to come to have confidence in it. That's not something we can expect to see happen overnight.

I'd appreciate it if you would make an effort to express your skepticism of the conventional methodology claims as often as you express your skepticism of the data-based methodology claims. We started out these discussions with a large number of community members expressing confidence in the analytic validity of the conventional studies. In fact, there was a good bit of shock registered when I first said that the REHP study is analytically invalid for purposes of determining SWRs. If we have reached a point where we enjoy a consensus that the conventional methodology claims are hogwash, then we have come a long way.

My sense is that we may have indeed reached a consensus on that point. But you don't often hear that view expressed in posts other than in those put up by hocus. I think it would be a healthy sign if we began to see the conventional methodology claims challenged as often as the data-based claims (or preferably, even more often). If you really believe that there is no such thing as an SWR (and I believe you really do), please say so when you see people trying to pass off the REHP study as legitimate "research" into the question of what withdrawal rate is safe.

Those wondering why I feel so strongly that the conventional methodology studies are invalid while believing that the data-based SWR approach has great value might want to check out the second post in the "Definitions" thread at the SWR board.

http://www.nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=2734

hocus: "If future stock returns are truly unknowable, then we cannot say with any confidence whatsoever that a 4 percent withdrawal is "100 percent safe." If returns are truly random, then it could be that the next 30-year sequence is going to be a sequence in which there are 30 straight years of negative returns. That return sequence is just as likely as any other return sequence if stock returns are a truly random event."


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
th
** Regular


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 84
Location: Northern CA

PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2004 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You are again reading too much into what I said.

I was not dismissing your 'system', nor anyone elses in specific.

I was dismissing ALL AND ANY systems that say "this is 'safe'" or "this will most likely work", or anyone that suggests a particular percentage likelihood applies to their 'system'.

That would be yours. That would be the so-called "rehp" one. Or any other.

Its not only not possible, its unnecessary.

The only "system" that works is the one you feel best educated in and most comfortable with. Whether its 60/40 stocks/bonds or 40/60, peanut buttering assets around, buying high dividend stocks, value investing, lots of indexes or structured multi index funds.

But to say that one can assure any measure of safety beyond "should be ok" is on a fools errand.

By the way, I dont think your current advertised system is "ok". I think if you stick with it you'll be out of money before you pass on. But you'll be able to adequately predict exactly when you'll become penniless.

I'm honestly about two weeks past done on this conversation. But do continue on your own. It was very interesting and while I disagree, perhaps you guys are right. Only time will tell.

As a side note to those who couldnt stand to be here any longer but keep coming back to read and comment elsewhere...

Observe what just happened...I managed to read, comprehend and respond to someones set of opinions. Regardless of their real or perceived intent. Now I'm done doing that after having suffered no ill effects emotionally, physically or psychologically. I didnt have to freak out over it. I dont have to run off. I can easily ignore or continue these dialogs. I dont have to get angry. I dont hate or despise anyone, particularly people I dont even know. I dont and honestly wont even think about it very much after this.

I didnt "buy into" or feel "damaged" by that expressed opinion that I didnt agree with. I dont feel the need to eject anyone or suppress their opinions, even if those opinions might be "trolling". I dont feel the need to "protect" other readers from opinions I dont agree with. I dont feel the need to persistently disagree or contest every point for mine or someone elses edification. I dont have any urges to run to five other message boards to crow about what happened elsewhere. I dont feel like I have to set up my own domain to be able to control and screen what influences my daily reading.

Who'd have thought it was possible... Surprised



_________________
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. - Nietzsche
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ataloss
**** Heavy Hitter


Joined: 25 Nov 2002
Posts: 559

PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2004 10:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
TH. When you say that "there is no such thing as a safe withdrawal rate," you are saying that the study published at retireEarlyHomePage.com is analytically invalid.


LOL, For gosh sakes th why didn't you say so Laughing

Anyway as demonstrated again hocus/jwr really want to talk about hocus and the wrongs that have been done to him. swr is a pretext. REHP is wrong but they have no real alternative.

As you say the bomb appears to have been more or less set off by other posters but the current state of affairs here is the same as before es says he "made a mistake" and banned hocus.

you can ignore the unsupportable statements by hocus or you can try to engage him which results in the usual circular arguments and "special terminology" that he and jwr enjoy so much

(as for me, been there and done that)



_________________
Have fun.

Ataloss
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
th
** Regular


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 84
Location: Northern CA

PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2004 10:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You may be right.

But I gave him his "chance", listened to it, responded, and yes, now I'm done and its fully ignorable. If the tune changes, I'll look at the changes and see if anything in them 'bites' on me.

In the meanwhile, I have 37 billion other pages of information that need reading and if appropriate, added to my knowledgebase.

If someone else meanders in, buys the snake oil and gets bitten...oh well. People who buy snake oil are going to do so no matter what, its just a matter of from whom, and in the end we're all on our own.



_________________
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. - Nietzsche
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 Jul 05, 2004 10:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Greetings ataloss Smile
Quote:
(as for me, been there and done that)

Fine I think we get your point. Rolling Eyes There are other boards and other subjects to address on our site. You seem to be only posting with regard to this one subject of late. What happened to all those other great posts on other subjects we are used to seeing from you? Confused



_________________
"The best things in life are FREE!"

www.nofeeboards.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
hocus2004
Moderator


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2004 11:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

"I dont have to get angry. I dont hate or despise anyone, particularly people I dont even know."

Yes!

This is why it is so absurd when you claim to see some sort of hostility in me towards intercst. There is none. Zero. The reason why there is none is the observation you put forward here. All that one can know about another poster is what is put forward in his or her posts. How could any sane person form personal antagonisms towards people he only knows from interactions on a discussion board? The idea that I would have formed some personal antagonism towards intercst because of things he has said on a discussion board is too silly an idea to contemplate or discuss.

Do I believe that intercst's study is analytically invalid? I do.

Do I believe that intercst has violated a pledge he made to readers of his study by failing to correct it when he learned that he got the number wrong (or at the minimum that serious people like William Bernstein believe that he got the number wrong)? I do.

Do I disapprove of the posting tactics that intercst has employed to block reasoned discussions of SWRs? I do.

Do I think intercst has done great damage to these communities with his abusive posting practices? I do.

Do I believe that all community members who want to see these communities succeed should demand that Motley Fool enforce its site rules and revoke intercst's posting privileges? I do.

All of that is board business. None of that is personal.

I do no dislike intercst as a person. I am grateful for some things he has done for the community as a whole and for me in particular at earlier times. But I believe that he is now the single greatest obstacle on Planet Earth to people's efforts to learn how to achieve financial independence early in life. So I want him out of our hair. I want him gone.

I do not dislike him. I hope to have a cordial business-like relationship with him when I meet up with him in other venues (radio interviews or debates or whatever). But I don't think that there is any legitimate place for him any longer on these boards. He has violated the community's trust in serious ways and we cannot hope to attract too many of the sort of posters we want to attract so long as he and his posting tactics remain with us.

I want to see him gone but I do not dislike him personally. I hope that I have made my position clear enough on that one. I hope that we can put that one to rest once and for all.

I like the guy as a person just fine. I absolutely cannot tolerate his posting tactics and the damage they have done to the various posting communities. Please feel free to quote me on either of those two statements of my position on the intercst question. Just be sure to quote me accurately, OK?


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
th
** Regular


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 84
Location: Northern CA

PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2004 11:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry I could only stay interested enough to read the first paragraph. If you had other points, I didnt take them in.

Its clear to me AND a professional that you are in fact quite hostile towards him. And he with you.

I said it before and I'll say it again.

Think on this, reflect on it. Acknowledge it and the reasons behind it. Then put it away and stick with the business at hand, rather than the anger.

But deny it at your peril.

However, I think you've blown up too many buildings and cut off too many heads to recover, either way. But maybe theres a chance...



_________________
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. - Nietzsche
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus2004
Moderator


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2004 12:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Its clear to me AND a professional that you are in fact quite hostile towards him. "

Any "professional" who makes judgments like this on the basis of what he picks up from reading discussion board posts is a piss-poor idea of a "professional." You can tell him I said so.

There's nothing personal in that assessment either. I am going by what you say this "professional" told you. My response is only as accurate as the information in your posts about what this individual has said to you.

"And he with you. "

I personally do not believe that this is any more personal with intercst than it is with me. I can't see inside his head, so it is theoretically possible that I am wrong about this.

My sense from reading the posts is that intercst is using all the angry threatening stuff as a tactic because he has had success with it in the past, and because he believes that there are few community members who have the balls to call him on his nonsence given the consequences that have followed for those who have dared to do so in the past. It is the community's job to let him know in no uncertain terms that those sorts of tactics won't fly and the community has failed miserably at bringing this message home to him.

You've created the monster, TH. You and a good number of others. Now you need to figure out how to get the monster in a cage.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
th
** Regular


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 84
Location: Northern CA

PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2004 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It really didnt require a pro. Every darn thing you say screams "I'm angry and full of hate towards this person".

I just asked the pro to look into it and tell me I'm not crazy.

Like I said earlier on, gauging someones temperament on a BBS isnt a very exact science. But when you supply so much unidirectional fodder, it becomes a little bit obvious.

Sorry you're angry about it, but we rarely recognize the truth about ourselves.

Hope you can do that and be better as a result.



_________________
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. - Nietzsche
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    NoFeeBoards.com! Forum Index » Town Center 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