I believe it was Charlie Munger who said, "Don't waste your time with people whose ideas you immediately know to be stupid."
I've had plenty of occasion to get mad at a poster who said something offensive or something I just completely disagree with. This happens in real life too where there is often no recourse, the person is spoiling for a fight but you are not going to give them one. But that doesn't make you feel any better about it. What I've had to learn is that one doesn't get happy by continually fighting with these people, it just makes you miserable and distracts you from what matters most. So I now try to quickly move past non-constructive discussions like the ones you highlight (rather than keep fighting back against them which only encourages the other person to continue). I too hate to feel I've lost, to back down, to feel I cannot win the argument, the deck is stacked against me, so quit instead. Everything inside me fights against that. But once again, it goes nowhere good. If someone else wants to live their life that way, fine, I choose not to. You should too. I and others won't continually get drawn into a discussion about lies, false profits and the like because it does not move things on, it only repeats what has gone before where there can be no happy ending. I prefer to keep learning and keep productive.
As to the context of the original post, retirement, I do not think that we are that much apart though I look forward to consider more your perspective on that part of your book. I will certainly let you know what I think. To me it is just really very simple, one can have an increasing level of personal & financial freedom, of financial independence, but one cannot have true financial independence until one can cover all essential expenses in full from investment returns alone. If you must rely on paid work to pay for essential expenses, you are not independent. Non-essential expenses, everything from a vacation to a trip to the movies are spending choices we make along the way. We may decide to perform paid work in order to afford such "luxuries" but one chooses to work in order to choose to afford those items. I do not think that makes one less independent. It can be said that one chooses to work in order to pay for essential living expenses and this is true up to a point, but one really doesn't have a choice there.
Certainly one can enjoy working in a different vocation or for oneself and enjoy more personal freedom from no longer having a boss or doing what one always wanted to do but never dreamed was possible. But I would classify personal freedom as distinctly different from financial freedom. I have worked for myself and I felt more freedom than I did working for someone else, but it did not make me any more financially independent than before. I still needed to work in order to pay for essential expenses. This I believe goes back to your post on the Fool about the cost of luxuries and having different FIRE budgets for different levels of financial independence achieved. I am therefore a little surprised that you have a POV which seems at odds with that approach.
I haven't posted much on the REHP boards for a number of reasons. Firstly the number of off-topic posts to on-topic posts makes it difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. Secondly, I have made a home elsewhere. Thirdly, whilst other message boards certainly have their own peccadilloes, the discussions tend to be broader, more data-based, more holistic. I find the Fool is instructive for discussion on individual stock investing and I enjoy other boards on a wide range of topics. I still find it valuable to me.
hocus2004 wrote: Petey and I have been exchanging e-mails for a number of years. We have a relationship off of these boards. He sent me an e-mail yesterday monring asking to see a copy of my book and I will be putting one in the mail to him today.
In that book, there is a section discussing the question of how the word "retirement" needs to be redefined. I have discussed this concept in brief on the boards, but I discuss it with more depth and context in the book. My suggestion is that Petey read that section of the book when he obtains his copy. Perhaps I will persuade him and perhaps I will not. Perhaps he will write a response to what I say in the book that will persuade me. Either result is evidence of a learning experience.
I obviously believe strongly that the word "retirement" needs to be redefined. Otherwise I wouldn't be making the case that it needs to be redefined in the pages of a book that I am trying to sell to the ouside world. I would like Petey or Karma or any other poster to tell me what I should do in the circumstances I am in. I believe that the word "retirement" needs to be redefined, that it does not make sense for people to seek after "retirement" early in life so long as we continue to define "retirement" as a withdrawal from life itself, a preparation for death. Intercst does not agree. Intercst has shown a willingness to launch a Campaign of Terror against anyone who questions one of his Sacred Nonsense Dogmas, whether it be the Sacred Nonsense Dogma that changes in valuation have zero effect on SWRs or the Sacred Nonsense Dogma that anyone who does anything other than watch television in retirement should not be permitted to post at any of the boards, or any of the others. What would you have me do?
When did you last post to the Motley Fool board, Petey? It's been a long, long time, hasn't it?
I wonder why.