Abusive postings etc

[wabmester]

TH, I think you're giving ***** way too much credit. If ***** and JWR1945 were the same guy, that feat alone would raise my esteem for ***** by orders of magnitude. There's no way. Don't let his paranoia infect you too

[cute fuzzy bunny]

It doesnt take much credit at all and I havent seen a professional troll yet that didnt know how to use a proxy server. Many people that work at large companies have to become familiar with them because they need to pipe all their external internet communications through them, and some ISP's require you to use their proxy servers.

Considering there are at least two and possibly three other people that are almost certainly ***** in disguise, I dont think its particularly paranoid at all. Its just part of his little game. I compared notes with several other frequent posters and we all had the same names in mind as being particularly *****-like or only showing up to stimulate one of his little tirades.

Is the guy you mentioned one of his alter ego's? Thats been a topic of speculation for quite some time now. They have a lot in common and tend to show up at about the same time an awful lot.

Check this out:

http://www.publicproxyservers.com/index.html

[wabmester]

Dude, I'm not talking about spoofing IP addresses. Any bozo can do that, but there's no way ***** could invent a persona of a 59-year old electrical engineer from FL and be perfectly self-consistent. He's simply not that smart. (Only I could do that )

[hocus]

***** has offered in a private message to tone things down in both content and frequency.

So that this does not cause more confusion, I think I had better set forth here the wording of the e-mail that I sent to Dory36 yesterday morning (I sent the e-mail before I was aware that he had put up this thread):

"You have no doubt noticed that the friction level has increased on the Early Retirement Forum. I am going to try not to do anything to cause it to increase further. My intent is to put up a non-SWR post each Wednesday, and then just try to ignore whatever disruptions are posted to the thread. If a question is posed to me on the actual topic of the thread, I will of course respond. And if some sort of process issues are raised that only I can respond to, I probably will respond to those as well. As a general rule, however, I am going to aim to take a hands-off posture until the community as a whole expresses its will more clearly.
*
"If you have any suggestions for how to proceed for the long-term good of the board, please feel free to let me know of your thoughts. "

My goal is to open up space for honest and informed posting on the SWR question not only at this board, but at all FIRE/Retire Early/Passion Saving boards. I have made it my Life Project to advance knowledge of how to retire early. I work at it about 50 hours per week, and I expect to continue doing so for another 20 years or so. Discussion boards have tremendous potential to help middle-class workers explore ways to achieve financial freedom early in life. I saw what they can do during my experience on the Motley Fool board, and they can do some amazing things. So I want all boards dealing with this subject matter to thrive.

The controversy that now swells arouund me even when I post on non-SWR topics all follows from what I have said re SWRs. I have said that the methodology used in the study published at RetireEarlyHomePage.com is analytically invalid. If the community's view (or Dory36's view) is that that position is by definition so unreasonable as to justify banning any poster who voices it on this board, it would save everybody a lot of trouble if I were banned today. The question of whether this issue can be discussed is a question of board integrity. If posters at this board are not permitted to discuss the flaws of the REHP study, this board is not worth saving, in my view.

My understanding of things is that we are permitted to discuss the flaws of the REHP study here. If I am right about that, then I think that this board is very much worth saving. I think that it can be built into a fantastic learning resource for aspiring early retirees of the future. There is one thing that TH is right about. He is right that my plan with the Wednesday posts is to turn my focus to non-SWR stuff for some time so that I can regain the attention of community members who have tuned me out because of the smears that have been directed at me. I'll be doing it by putting forward posts that another Retire Early community found valuable, so I believe that all of us will enjoy a great learning experience with this. But I do have hopes that a few community members will as a result of my non-SWR posts become more open to hearing my SWR claims. I might just save a few retirements from going bust with this thing. That's what it's all about, in my view.

It's fair to say that I hope not to be posting too much aside from the Wednesday posts, and it is also fair to say that I will be doing what I can to avoid controversy. It needs to be added, however, that ultimately my decisions re posting are always aimed at furthering the long-term success of the board. If there are posts put up that I believe could cause us great long-term damage, I will no doubt feel a strong pull to do what I can to help out.

I have 20 high-priority projects that I have put off for too long. So, if other community members behave reasonably, you won't be seeing too much of me for awhile outside of my Wednesday posts. But I don't want to be thought to have made a promise that I will not post outside of that regardless of the circumstances. For example, we have recently been doing some breakthrough stuff over at the SWR Research Group board. If there are questions put up here which could be ansswered effectively by making reference to the recent work done at the other board, I will probably feel a strong pull to put something up.

Whether to post or not is always a judgment call. It goes without saying that you will never see me ridicule a fellow poster or attack a fellow poster or engage in anything remotely resembling disruption or anything else along those lines. It is possible that you will see me put forward some posts aimed at helping aspiring early retirees achieve their life goals. Some of those might be on the topic of SWRs and some might be on other topics.

[hocus]

FWIW, in each message I see the IP address the poster posts from, where you see the word "logged". So it is easy for me to spot someone posting under different names. No such activity in this thread. (I haven't noticed it elsewhere, but haven't looked hard.)

You have my permission to investigate any claim put forward that I have posted under a different name at this board and to report your findings to the board community, Dory36.

[hocus]

There's no way ***** could invent a persona of a 59-year old electrical engineer from FL and be perfectly self-consistent. * He's simply not that smart.

I'm with Wabmester on this one.

[hocus]

I particularly find troll posts and recycled garbage on boards that have nothing to do with the material posted to be very obnoxious.

I find the troll references offensive and I would like to see that nonsense come to a complete stop beginning today. I have a proposal that I would like to run past the board community that I hope will help bring it to a complete stop.

I have written a book on the subject matter of this board that I will be self-publishing early next year. The title is: "Passion Saving: The Path to Plentiful Free Time and Soul-Satisfying Work." If you count the time I spend doing research, it took me several years to write this work. It seems absurd to me that someone who directed that much energy toward spreading knowledge of the subject matter of the board is frequently referred to by a number of posters here as a "troll." Someone who would go to the trouble of writing a book-length manuscript on the subject matter of this board obviously has a sincere interest in spreading knowledge relating to that subject matter.

Tom Garnder, co-founder of Motley Fool, and Dory36 (using his real name) have both agreed to write blurbs that will appear on the back cover of the book (I asked for their approval to run comments that they made in regard to my "Secrets of Retiring Early" report, which was an early treatment of some of the themes explored in more depth in the book). My personal view is that the fact that these two individuals have given their endorsements to my work in this field should be evidence enough to any fair-minded person that I am not a "troll." But my guess is that for some this will not be enough.

Dory36 has a copy of the book manuscript in his possession. He has told me that he will not be able to read it for some time because he is in the process of moving. It sounds to me that he has an interest in taking at least a look at it at some point in the not-too-distant future. What if we were to leave it to Dory36 to read the manuscript and to post his thoughts at this board as to whether his reading of the manuscript convinved him one way or the other on the "troll" question?

I am confident that Dory36 will conclude from a reading of even the first two chapters that I am not a troll. Are those who say that I am willing to have Dory36 serve as arbitrator on this question? If Dory36 says after reading the book that I am indeed a troll, I will raise no further objections to use of that phrase to describe me. If Dory36 says that he is convinced from reading the book that I am not a troll, I ask that those who have made a practice of saying that I am cease from doing so.

Does that sound fair enough to everybody?

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Quote:

Dude, I'm not talking about spoofing IP addresses. Any bozo can do that, but there's no way ***** could invent a persona of a 59-year old electrical engineer from FL and be perfectly self-consistent. He's simply not that smart. (Only I could do that )

Once again, dont focus on the JWR comparison, although I do believe that someone with nothing else to do with their time could in fact pull off what you say they cannot.

Look for a couple of very, very long threads started by someone who after making the start disappeared for good or only came back a few more times. These threads have heavy participation by ***** and he quotes pieces of them here and at many other boards.

The couple of threads I have in mind point out discrepancies in SWR methodology or propose hokey and unworkable alternative investment strategies.

Sound familiar?

If either of these "people" ever reappeared, it was in threads showing support for *****, within minutes or hours of a ***** post.

What ARE the odds that an ER would show up, make one of their first posts a postulation about a possible error in "conventional SWR methodology", and then only make 10-20 other posts over the course of a year to threads saying they think ***** is a-ok?

Pretty damn skinny.

And yes GDER he is in hog heaven and in fact he is in full plumage above displaying the reasons why he is not well regarded. However I for one am tired of looking at the wound that cannot be healed.

[brewer12345]

I think 4 voluminous posts over the space of a couple of hours tells us a lot about the problem.

Time for a ban.

[Beachbumz]

I want to go on record against banning anyone that has not broken the rules of the board. Further, I agree that it would be very difficult to do so anyway. If you don't like the posts (or the poster) don't read them. Why keep stirring the pot? I think the "ignore user" feature exists in all of us.

I have nothing against *****, or TH or anyone else on this board, and I think that everyone should be allowed to voice their opinions. I also don't know a whole lot about any postings in the past, but, from just reading the posts in recent weeks, TH is coming off as the aggressor . This is just my personal observation. I don't know the history between TH and ***** (and DON'T want too really!!!) and it could be very well like in football, when the person that starts the fight isn't the one hit with the penalty, but this is my perception.

As for SWRs, I don't exactly buy into this either. I think any SWR calculator is flawed in that it can't predict the future (I wish it could!). I think it is a good guideline and the best we have available to us (how can it factor in health care costs when no one knows how that is going to play out, or the devaluation of the dollar, etc.), but the world is changing and I will adabt and adjust my spending accordingly, and if someday I have to go back to w*** or move to a cheaper country then so be it, but I sure am enjoying myself today.

I primarily read this board to see the "lifestyles in retirement" as I want to see what people are doing to enjoy life. I wish there were more posts in this category.

Of course, while I have been typing this, my wife has been on the internet ordering stuff, so I may need to recalculate things now :

[wabmester]

The real surprise will come when we find out that TH and ***** are the same person. Or will it be that we're all plugged into the matrix and are just dreaming this world?

Who needs soap operas when we have the twists and turns of "ER: the forum".

Here's a possible technical solution. Give ***** his own topic on this board, but make it write-only.

[arrete]

Quote:

Here's a possible technical solution. Give ***** his own topic on this board, but make it write-only.

I was not going to get into this thread, but this is a really bad idea. One only needs to observe the destruction of the NoFees board. Posters can always horn in on/destroy other threads.

Because there is no way to limit new members, the only thing to do is Ignore. Never respond directly. I've been there, and it works.

arrete

[wabmester]

Sorry, it was sort of a joke. "Write-only" means he can post, but nobody else can see them.

[arrete]

Quote:

Sorry, it was sort of a joke.

Okey, dokey. I thought they would appear but no one could resond. Which also might not be bad

I miss DOS.

arrete

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Yeah, I used to have a write-only disk drive.

At least I think it was.

Giving ***** his own anything is a bad idea, and expounding on Arrete's comment...he was given his own board at nofeeboards with moderator privileges.

He used those privileges to edit and remove other users posts that disagreed with his positions, saying they were "unproductive".

He then campaigned to have Intercst banned from all ER forums for "lies and death threats".

In light of that, isnt it both ironic and amusing to see him beg to be given his right to express his opinions and how awful 'bans' are?

The 'ignore it' idea works great for a while. Then try slogging through your fourth of fifth thread of the day, each 5-6+ pages long because ***** has a half dozen full page brain farts clogging them up. Particularly when said farts have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. When the signal to noise ratio starts to drop below the level you can tolerate, you'll start feeling differently about the "just ignore it" approach.

[nfs]

I don't have the history with ***** so I find it hard to get as exercised about his reams as some of the rest. I don't much like the idea of banning him - the cure for nonsense is not censorship but free speech.

Nevertheless, I confess that his endless repetition of "bad SWR" and "I wrote a book" wearies even me. If an ignore feature is impossible, then perhaps his posts could simply be shunted automatically onto a very few ***** threads, or manually each Wednesday, or ***** could be told to post only on these topics within those threads.

***** can say the same things over and over in thousand word chunks, interested parties and potential acolytes can read it all in one place, and the rest can blithely ignore it.

[Beachbumz]

Interesting that a person like NFS, who breaks the boards simple "reasonable and courteous" rule with his posts would reply to a thread like this!

[JonnyM]

He (who shall not be named as I expect he spends most of his waking moments doing searches on just that 5 letter combination):

"serves no useful purpose"

I cannot say that about any other member of this fine board, clearly the best one I've found in regards to the elements of ER in my six months of research and some small amount of participation since I saw the light...

This is a great place. I read every new thread every few days, and I am enriched for it, except for a previously mentioned notable exception.

JonnyM

[ChocoKitty]

Quote:

Nevertheless, I confess that his endless repetition of "bad SWR" and "I wrote a book" wearies even me. *

Try seeing that drivel for YEARS and see how much more weary you get! I pointed out that (1) he needed a book proposal and (2) that he was not allowed to use my posts without permission and he got massively huffy with me and accused me of threatening to sue (calling it a "class action" lawsuit to make it sound even more dramatic without even knowing what the hell it means).

I say ban him. He repels a lot of people and something just isn't right with him.

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I've given this matter some consideration. As far as my being the aggressor...I'm a considerable contributor to this forum and historically I was a key supporter in allowing this troll to post here, so I feel some responsibility for the results.

We're a community of people who voluntarily contribute to the collective group. We have a huge audience of readers and lurkers that dont post.

Some contributions are positive, some negative. Positive contributions build on and add to our community. Neutral and negative ones take away from it.

Trolls are the scourge of such a community. Their disruption and misinformation detracts from the good will and time we all put in to create the base of information and support for each other. Realizing that known posters are probably the tip of the user iceberg magnifies the situation.

I think it comes down to a small set of discussion points.

- Is this particular poster in fact a troll
- Is their participation consistently and in aggregate positive, negative or neutral
- If negative, is the damage done of significant detraction to warrant action
- If action is warranted, can the posters ability to continue to take away from our community be effected and effective

I think the fact that he has been banned for trolling from a number of communities speaks volumes. I think the fact that there is a preponderance of strong contributors to this and other similar forums who have extensive experience with this poster and call him a troll also weighs heavily. That there does not appear to be a significant body of participation that has had long term exposure to this poster and feels his contribution is even neutral closes the book. He's is very careful at avoiding overt breakage of board rules. He is however an expert at provoking...a superstar in the art of making someone else take a poke at him and then playing the victim. Some of his provokation includes "quoting" things that people havent actually said, laying claim to people following specific "systems" or "methodologies" that they in fact are not following, and laying unfounded claims and incomplete and inaccurate lines of thinking. Further, these diatribes are usually far too long for any reasonable person to want to read in the first place and their insertion into on and off topic discussions can be very disruptive for people trying to stay on a particular topic.

So unless dozens and dozens of credible people on several discussion boards are senseless drama queens, what we have here is a troll.

The input from this and other communities is that the contributions are not positive, but perhaps can be ignored.

History of this poster shows that he will continue to insert ever lengthening posts in more and more off topic posts until someone finally gives him the response he wants and community disruption is achieved. It really was a treat at places like nofeeboards that didnt restrict the length of each message.

Which brings the debated topic of a ban and its effectiveness.

It appears that historically, a ban has resolved the situation and this particular poster has not attempted to bypass the ban. Rather he's continued to work within the rules and wait for things to die down and for him to be reinstated. In the few instances that has happened, the communities imploded over it.

In summary:

- He is a troll
- Given time, he will detract from and damage the community
- In my opinion, action should be taken before that happens
- A ban has been and should continue to be effective

So thats the question for the rest of the contributors...are we willing to have our contributions detracted from in allowance of someone who has demonstrated a willingness to do nothing but create dissension and discord?