"I Love the Messiness of It"

Research on Safe Withdrawal Rates

Moderator: hocus2004

Post Reply
hocus2004
Moderator
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:33 am

"I Love the Messiness of It"

Post by hocus2004 »

Here's a link to a post that Motley Fool Co-Owner Tom Gardner put to one of his boards (the Berkshire-Hathaway board) yesterday afternoon.

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=21703550

Hot Gardner Quote #1: "I liken The Motley Fool community to a masterful investment book writ by the world. Every day, we come in to refine our work, edit one another's thoughts, all in an effort to solve the next great series of financial mysteries. I don't mind -- in fact I love -- the messiness of it. "

Hot Gardner Quote #2: "It's fine to be wrong in a board post. Being wrong and making mistakes is not a sin here, nor for that matter inside the business run by Charlie Munger and Warren Buffett. The sins, among others, are a) intentional deceit, b) destructive criticism, c) arrogance and pride, and d) inflexibility. I've felt the same thing for ten years: You do not learn unless you listen; schadenfreude is a short-term antidote but it ruins all in time; be open to ideas and tend to the many who want to make The Motley Fool better, those who love to construct rather than to pull down."

Hot Gardner Quote #3: "We're a site that welcomes, by way of example, our competition into a public discussion with our customers. Ponder that, dear Fool. We give everyone an opportunity to sound off, accepting that some folks are just going to be religiously and unfailingly publicly negative about who we are, what we stand for, what we have or haven't achieved, and whether or not we'll survive (or deserve to). Yet the flurry of posts and articles and interviews brought to the table for and by four million people each month, is aiding and abetting learning, insight and discovery, and new ways of seeing. "

Hot Gardner Quote #4: "Marty Whitman wouldn't have captured our philosophy so beautifully in advising us that anyone who knows he's right and that others are wrong is unlikely to succeed as an investor and businessman (leave aside in life). I remember his idea whenever I assess the work of others and whenever I read the analysis of our work by others. The greatest minds build. It is essential that you avoid at all costs situations where you're inclined to criticize someone or something without the intent of seeing it grow more vibrant, truer, and more useful -- else you will lose, not it."

Hot Gardner Quote #5: "That's why I love this community, and this discussion group. Without the constructive thinking from so many of you, the swirl of curiosity and goodwill that is The Motley Fool would dry up like a fallen leaf. Thanks for taking the time to share your ideas. Out of it is sure to come better services, better marketing, better tracking, and improved presentation. The only way to take an A service toward A+, and then into extra credit, is to listen and learn from those who want to see this garden grow. Thanks to you all for that."

Intercst doesn't own the Motley Fool site. Tom Gardner owns the Motley Fool site. I ask that all community members please take the time to read the words quoted above, and to consider for a moment or two the implications.
hocus2004
Moderator
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:33 am

Post by hocus2004 »

Tom Gardner: "You do not learn unless you listen...The greatest minds build. It is essential that you avoid at all costs situations where you're inclined to criticize someone or something without the intent of seeing it grow more vibrant, truer, and more useful "

Intercst (from two posts from yesterday): "You [he refers here to FoolMeOnce] never cease to amaze me with your lack of knowledge on early retirement. Maintaining the REHP website requires all of one or two hours per month. Since the topic has pretty much been completely covered, I only update the site every other month now....One of the true joys of early retirement is not having to conform to other folk's ideas about how you, personally, should think and behave. Since he's not retired, I know FMO doesn't understand that. And that he has a real problem with the witty, sometimes caustic, repartee that's made the REHP board so popular."

FoolMeOnce is one of the best informed and most popular posters in the history of the Motley Fool board. Intercst is wrong in his assessment of FoolMeOnce and his continued baiting of FoolMeOnce hurts us all as it deprives us of the insights that he could develop with the help of fellow community members if intercst would refrain from his constant baiting.

Garnder says that "you do not learn unless you listen," and he established posting rules for his site that required some minimal level of listening on the part of posters who participate there. Intercst does not meet these standards. His baiting not only reveals that he is not listening himself. The disruptions caused by his baiting (and by the reluctance of many community members to call the board founder to task for his nonsense) also makes it impossible for other community members to participate in the learning experiences they are aiming to participate in.

Intercst says that the topic of early retirement has been exhausted, there is nothing new to say. He is right in one sense and wrong in one sense. There are thousands of new insights to develop on the general topic of early retirement. The Early Retirement Forum generates several strong on-topic threads every day. But intercst is right that discussions of one particular vision of early retirement has been exhausted. There is nothing new to say on the intercst approach to early retirement. It was all said several years ago, and so long as discussions of alternate visions of early retirement are not permitted, nonsence gibberish will fill the void.

Anyone who has paid $30 to Motley Fool (or has been comped) has a right to insist that Motley Fool honor its promise to terminate the posting privileges of posters employing abusive posting pactices to block informed on-topic debate. Intercst has a right to start a new board to discuss whatever topic it is that interests him today. He does not have a right to continue to block the community's right to hold informed on-topic discussions at the Retire Early Home Page board. It is the community's board, not intercst's board.
JWR1945
***** Legend
Posts: 1697
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:59 am
Location: Crestview, Florida

Post by JWR1945 »

..Since he's not retired, I know FMO doesn't understand that. And that he has a real problem with the witty, sometimes caustic, repartee that's made the REHP board so popular.

The repartee is far from witty. It is caustic. It is not what made the REHP popular in the past. It is what is destroying [has destroyed?] it today.

Have fun.

John R.
hocus2004
Moderator
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:33 am

Post by hocus2004 »

"It is not what made the REHP popular in the past. "

Thank you so much for saying that, JWR1945. The ugliness is NOT what made the REHP board popular. What made the REHP board popular is that it offered middle-class workers ideas on how to win financial freedom early in life. The board wants to fly, and the ugliness that has become increasingly characteristic of it in recent years is an anchor weighing it down.

That community was built by hundreds of smart and generous souls with an interest in the subject matter of the board. Here are some names: (1) Jammerh; (2) TheBadger; (3) BenSolar; (4) Wanderer; (5)Ptsurmr; (6) Arrete; (7) FoolMeOnce; (Cool Galeno; (9) Seattle Pioneer; (10) raddr; (11) intercst; (12) hocus; (13) Spl241; (14) Malikito; (15) Biggalloot; (16) PeteyPerson; (17) NowInMaui; (1Cool InParadise; (19) CatherineCoy; (20) FoolLala; (21) Path40a; (22) Ataloss; (23) Dory36; (24) Promesthuss; (25) Hyperborea; (26) Mazke; (27) Duggg; (2Cool RJStanford; (29) MadCapitalist; (30) Jesever; (31) Phantomdiver; (32) Golfwaymore; (33) 1HappyFool; (34) DollarIQ; (35) Galagan; (36) MHTyler; and on and on. Do these people not deserve a better board for their efforts than what they have to make use of today? I sure think they do.

The Motley Fool rules were written for a purpose. They were written to stop this sort of thing from happening. None of the people named above were compensated for the time and energy they devoted to building up this asset for Motley Fool. They all agreed to make their contributions in exchange for a promise from Motley Fool that it would step in and help out if a time came when help was needed. I think it is fair to say that that time has come. Each of these people paid money to Motley Fool (or were comped) in part to pay the salaries of the site administrators whose job it is to enforce the published posting rules. I think it is fair to say that those individuals are not performing their job responsibilities in a reasonable way. Some of the persons named above (and a good number of others too) should be asking that these individuals begin doing the job they are being paid to do.

"It is what is destroying [has destroyed?] it today. "

Hope is not dead until the last person on Planet Earth with an interest in the subject matter of the board is dead. We taught that board to fly in a short amount of time. Then we taught it how to crash in a short amount of time. I see no reason why we cannot teach it to fly once again using the same approach we followed the first time we did so.

What we lack today is the will to act as a community in doing it. FoolMeOnce has tried many times to do good things for that board. So has BenSolar. So has Wanderer. So has Galagan. So have lots and lots of others. The mistake that each of these people has made is to try to act alone. Act alone, and you are going to have your head cut off. The trick is to act as a community. Act as a community, and the ones trying to cut your head off don't know in which direction to strike.

We built the board as a community. We must save it as a community too. It is the only way. No one poster is bigger or more important or stronger than the entire community. The board is a community resource. If the community wants it back, the community will need to do what it takes to get it back. It would be nice if that were not necessary, if Motley Fool would take appropriate action without the rest of us needing to put our necks on the line. Perhaps God planned it this way for some grand reason that we cannot guess. Perhaps the wonderful community we had there in earlier days came too easy and we were not appropriately grateful for it, and now need to learn how special a community like that is. I don't know. I know that a people creative enough to build that community in the first place is also creative enough to figure out how to go about the business of winning it back.

There are tens of thousands of discussion boards where people can argue about politics or aim to have their screen-name on the post with two zeros at the end. That board was special because its subject matter was special. That board taught people what they need to know to win financial freedom and thereby make their dreams come true. I believe that that board was special enough that we are someday going to decide that we want to save it. If we decide that we want to save it, I am all but certain that we will be able to pull it off.
hocus2004
Moderator
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:33 am

Post by hocus2004 »

Set forth below is the text of an e-mail that I sent this morning to Wanderer. The e-mail address that I have for him is dated and it is possible that it will not work. So I would appreciate it if some kind soul would direct Wanderer's attention to this post.

Brent:

I hope things are going well with you.

I have an idea as to how we might be able to reduce some of the frictions that have come to surround the discussion of safe withdrawal rates (SWRs).

You are in a unique position to serve as a peacemaker re this matter given the fact that you are respected by both the ataloss/raddr camp and by the hocus/JWR1945 camp. My thought is that you might open a new board at the NFB site titled the "Normalization" board (or any other title that you think better reflects what the board is about). You would use the board to try to resolve differences that have developed over time, inviting various participants in the discussions to respond to questions that in your judgment are the source of friction.

If you have an interest in talking over how this might work, please feel free to contact me to ask me my thoughts about various aspects of the project. I am going to post the content of this e-mail at the SWR Research Group board because I want fellow community members to know about the initiative and to put forward their thoughts. But if there are issues that you would prefer to discuss confidentially, I am of course open to that.

Rob (hocus)
hocus2004
Moderator
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:33 am

Post by hocus2004 »

Wanderer provided a response on a thread at the "What On Your Mind?" board at raddr-pages.com.

http://www.raddr-pages.com/forums/viewt ... 529af705cf

Wanderer: "Hey! What's goin' on?! When did this happen? I'm just trying to normalize my personal life and my professional life. That takes a lotta time! ;)"
hocus2004
Moderator
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:33 am

Post by hocus2004 »

The words below relate in part to a response from FoolMeOnce to a question that I had posted to the "FMO Gets Hocomania!" thread. They also relate to a response from Wanderer to a question that I had posted to this thread. So I am posting them here as well.


FoolMeOnce responded to my post above in a post he put to the Motley Fool board.

FoolMeOnce: "I quit posting on that site as a direct result of hocus being allowed back in by El Supremo. So obviously, yes, there is something Hocus could do . . . . leave and stay gone."

Both Wanderer and FoolMeOnce have recently responded to questions that I have asked of them at this board with responses posted to other boards. This is odd behavior. Wanderer should have responded here and FoolMeOnce should have responded here. That was the obviously right thing to do. Why didn't they?

They didn't because they know that if they respond here, I will also respond in the obviously right way. If Wanderer responded here sayiing that he is too "busy" to help the community resolve the frictions that it experineced largely as a result of his abusive posting in defense of the conventional methodology, I would respond by saying that, given the damage he has done to the community, he is under an obligation to do what he can to resolve the frictions. If FoolMeOnce responded by saying that he will not post at this site because I post at this site, I would ask him what it is about my posting that is troublesome to him.

The answer to that question is that he finds it troublesome that I post in an honest and informed way on both the substance and process side of the SWR question. FMO once said that he could not in good conscience continue to post at the Motley Fool board. He said this when threats of physical violence were made against anyone who posted honestly on SWRs. Today, FMO posts there. Why has he changed his mind?

I believe that he changed his mind because he wants to be able to post on a board that has a large enough community that he can obtain a good amount of feedback to his posts. I want that too. So do most other community members. That is why many continue to post at the Motley Fool board despite their displeasure at intercst's dishonest and absusive posting tactics. All of us who built the Motley Fool board (FoolMeOnce, Wanderer, and hocus all played a big role) have a right to use that board to discuss early retirement and we all have a right to be protected by the Motley Fool site administrators from intercst's abusive and dishonest posting practices.

Me and Wanderer and FoolMeOnce should all be on the same side. There was a time when we all WERE on the same side. Both FoolMeOnce and Wanderer were among my biggest supporters when I came forward showing that intercst got the number wrong in the study published at RetireEarlyHomePage.com. Both of them have come to the conclusion that there is no hope that intercst can ever be removed from that board and that thus honest and informed posters should give up on any chance of engaging in honest and informed discussions of early retirement at the board. I do not agree. That is the only reason why there is a rift between Wanderer and FoolMeOnce and lots of others on one side and me on the other.

I say that we can have intercst removed. The Motley Fool rules make clear in no uncertain terms that posters who engage in intercst-type posting practices will "not be tolerated" at that site. It appears that Tom Gardner, owner of the site, played a role in crafting those rules (the language at the top of this thread suggests strongly that this is so as it makes similar points to the point put forward in the "Learning Together" page of the site). Tom Gardner is going to help us re this matter in days to come.

Wanderer and FoolMeOnce and BenSolar and PeteyPerson and raddr and a number of others have chosen the wrong horse. These are all fine posters and we need their contributions at this site and at all sites at which early retirement is discussed. Please think over what you are doing, guys!

It is degrading for FoolMeOnce to post at the Motley Fool board given the circumstances that apply today. I can't say that it doesn't make me glad to see him remind the board from time to time of what it used to be. But it is degrading all the same for him to expose himself to the sort of abuse that he regularly exposes himself to. He should be trying to do what can be done to CHANGE the situation so that he and ALL OTHER honest and informed posters can use that board for the purposes for which it was created.

We are going to win this one, guys. We are going to have a new Golden Age at the Motley Fool board (and at a number of others). Hang in there, Wanderer. Hang in there, FoolMeOnce. We would get there quicker if the two of you would lend a hand. But we are going to get there either way. In the end, you will be posting in an honest and informed way once again and you will NOT be exposed to abuse when you do so.

Think it over and please ask any questions that you think would help you come to an informed decision as to how to proceed. It is easier if you direct them to me here, but I will make an effort to follow the action at the other boards to the extent that I can so that I will know what you are thinking about if you elect to do it the other way.

The real fireworks (the good kind!) are not all that far away anymore. Hang in there, all of you.
hocus2004
Moderator
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:33 am

Post by hocus2004 »

Wanderer put up a post this morning at the raddr-pages.com board putting forward a bit more of the usual nonsense gibberish, but then offering these words:

Wanderer: "I find it hard to dislike hocus."

Given that this is a poster who in an earlier time asked if anyone knew of a way to inflict a fellow community member with syphilis via a discussion board posting, I think it is fair to interpret these words as a small step in the direction of Normalization.
hocus2004
Moderator
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:33 am

Post by hocus2004 »

I put up a post on the FIRE board today providing a link to an article that Wanderer wrote for the Journal of Financial Planning. We should all take pride in the fact that one of our own had this article published in this influential journal. We all also should take a moment to stop and ponder what the publication of this article says about this new communications medium--the internet discussion board.

The many thousands of readers of the Journal of Financial Planning are just today gaining access to Wanderer's insights re the benefits and costs of Expat Living. When do you think that I began gaining access to those insights? For me, that magic started happening in the year 2000, when I tapped into the Wanderer insights on expat living by reading his posts on the REHP board at the Motley Fool site.

Are all discussion boards a big joke? They are not. Is it sometimes possible to gain access to people who are informed about a particular topic through a discussion board? It sure as shooting is. My experience with Wanderer proves it. And it ain't only though my experience with Wanderer that I learned things about early retirement that it would not have been possible for me to learn anywhere else. I gained access to unique insights by reading raddr's stuff. And by reading JWR1945's stuff. And by reading intercst's stuff. And by reading FoolMeOnce's stuff. And by reading TheBadger's stuff. And by reading Dory36's stuff. And by reading Biggaloot's stuff. Each of these posters has posted (for free!) stuff on the internet about early retirement that I learned from. I want that to continue happening. I want it to happen more in the future than it has happened in the past.

So don't try telling me that internet discussion boards are a big waste of time, that I should not concern myself with the fact that intercst and his supporters are now engaging in deliberate deception re the SWR issue. There are thousands of middle-class workers out there in the real world with an interest in knowing what it takes to win financial freedom early in life. They should be able to count on us to shoot straight with them when they turn to us for help. Intercst is not shooting straight and his failure to shoot straight has caused a large number of our best people to leave us. Two of our boards (the Motley Fool board and the FIRE board) have been burned to the ground. Two (the SWR board and the Early Retirement Forum) have suffered serious damage. It is time for the nonsense to stop.

Wanderer didn't elect to publish his article in the Journal of Financial Deception. He chose the Journal of Financial Planning instead because he wanted his name to appear in a publication with a reputation for being serious, for being informed, for being accurate. If Wanderer sees a benefit in having his writing appear in a serious publication, it should not be too hard for us all to understand why the Motley Fool board can no longer attract serious posts on the topic of early retirement. The best people who once posted at that board wanted the same thing Wanderer wanted. They wanted their ideas to be treated with a reasonable amount of seriousness and respect. They weren't getting what they wanted, so they left the community.

I want those people back. If I can't get them back, I want to attract new people to these boards with the same skills as the people we have lost. I want a new Golden Age. At the Motley Fool board. At the NFB site. At the Early Retirement Forum. At the raddr site. Everywhere. I want a dozen Golden Ages all going on at once, all feeding into one another and creating an explosion heard around the world.

I hope that we can persuade Wanderer to knock off the nonsense and get back on the right side of things. I consider him the second best poster in the history of our movement. We need his contributions. But we need him shooting straight. We sure don't need him degrading himself with nonsense gibberish DCM junk. We need him doing what Wanderer does best, making the community thrive. I hope we are going to get that, if not right away, then soon. I will certainly do anything that I can to make it happen.

Wanderer knows the score with intercst. It was the Smear Campaign led by intercst against Wanderer that caused me finally to go public with what I knew about SWRs and the REHP study. I held back for three years because I did not want to see harm done to the community. After the Smear Campaign against Wanderer, it was hard to see how there was much risk anymore in going forward. There's not much point in bringing good new posters in the front door if each time that a good one reveals himself, intercst is going to drive him out the back.

Wanderer got fed up with the nonsense and spoke truth to power. That's what started all this. Good for him. Double good for him if he works up the nerve to do it a second time.
hocus2004
Moderator
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:33 am

Post by hocus2004 »

Here is a link to a thread going on at the raddr-pages.com board in which a number of community members are discussing the question of "What Obligation Does a FIRE Board Poster Owe to His Community?" There is some silliness in it, but there are some points that are worth taking a look at being made in this thread too.

http://www.raddr-pages.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=828
hocus2004
Moderator
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:33 am

Post by hocus2004 »

Raddr put up a post today stating that William Bernstein is NOT banned from participating at raddr-pages.com
Post Reply