ER religious preference

[haha]

I'm Catholic. My taste runs more to incense and Gregorian Chant than to dogma. Since I was already adult by Vatican 2, I am maybe not as dogmatically sophisticated as many younger Catholics. Kind of a typical older ethnic Catholic man. Went to Catholic grade school, but public high school. I do not care what religion anyone else practices, or doesn't practice.

Mikey

[Marshac]

Quote:

I do not care what religion anyone else practices, or doesn't practice.

Too bad not everyone thinks that way... it's sure easier to live your own life when you stop worrying about how others are living theirs. Canadians have figured this out... hopefully we can too.

[hocus]

Somebody deleted it. Wise move.

I didn't see Zipper's post. So I can't say for sure. But it's hard for me to imagine that it was worse than a lot of other stuff I have seen posted to this forum and not deleted (I don't mean on this thread).

I did not see the "Zipper" post either. I am glad he is on
here though, if only because he serves to take some pressure off me when I go on a "rant".

I don't know if the following would be considered a virtue, but I like it. Unless I am joking around (which I do a lot) my stuff is always
honest. Great believer in honesty in all venues, even
when my mouth gets me in trouble. DW is trying to
train me to be less outspoken. How's she doing?

JG

[hocus]

I am glad he is on here though, if only because he serves to take some pressure off me when I go on a "rant".

I know the feeling.
*
*I don't know if the following would be considered a virtue, but I like it. *Unless I am joking around (which I do a lot) my stuff is always honest.

That's two virtues by my count. Honesty is a virtue. And taking a lighthearted enough approach that you are able to joke around even when under attack is a virtue.

Great believer in honesty in all venues

I knew there was something I liked about you, JohnGalt.

DW is trying to train me to be less outspoken. *How's she doing?

I think that your wife is right to seek to have you say things in a softer way, and that you are right not to want to soften things to the point where you are not saying anything of value. Each new morning gives every one of us a new opportunity to aim to achieve the right mix.

[BigMoneyJim]

Quote:

I didn't see Zipper's post. So I can't say for sure. But it's hard for me to imagine that it was worse than a lot of other stuff I have seen posted to this forum and not deleted (I don't mean on this thread).

I'm assuming it was a CHP retracted by Zipper himself, but of course I have no way of knowing that. I don't think it was applied censorship as I interpreted your post to mean.

[laurence]

Zipper, did you retract your post? From what I remember, it was in the vein of "religion is the opiate of the masses" but there was no specific name calling or particular person bashing. I for one am glad Zipper feels that way, even though I disagree with him. When we all start saying the same thing, that's when I'll get scared. Divirsity of thought is one of our greatest strengths!

[hocus]

I don't think it was applied censorship as I interpreted your post to mean.

I don't know what happened, BigMoneyJim.

[Spanky]

Raised as a catholic but lost faith when I was 20 years old. Now I am reading various religious books. My interest now is Buddhism which is not really a religion -- more like philosophy.

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I've never seen any attempt at censorship on this board, except for self censorship.

In fact, the only censorship I've ever seen on ANY early retirement board was performed by ***** himself when he was given moderator status on another board and used that to delete or edit posts that disagreed with him.

I would however at this time suggest that this set of posts is potentially highly incendiary and I'm having a hard time finding the merit in going down such a road. Perhaps we should find something else to talk about before things DO get out of hand?

Sorry Azanon.

[hocus]

I've never seen any attempt at censorship on this board.

I have seen it. There is a thread in the "Young Dreamers" section titled "Cheap Fun Stuff" which a number of community members shut down solely because I was the author of the thread-starter and because I have a history of posting in an honest and informed way on the SWR topic. There was one community member who asked if he could please be permitted to hear what I had to say. This request was refused. There was another community member who said that because of the obscenities posted on that thread, the filter at his place of work would no longer permit him to view this forum.

Those posters were denied their ability to make use of this forum for the purpose for which it was created. That's censorship in my book. It's not goverment censorship, of course. But it's private censorship. It's bad stuff.
*
In fact, the only censorship I've ever seen on ANY early retirement board was performed by ***** himself when he was given moderator status on another board and used that to delete or edit posts that disagreed with him.

I have responsibilities as moderator of the SWR Research Group board to insure that those want to use that board as a learning resource are able to do so, and I honor those responsibilities. That required me once to delete a post. There has never been any post deleted from that board because it expressed a message in disagreement with my own views.

Even in the one case in which I deleted a post, I placed the entire text of the post in a thread at the same board titled "Deleted Posts File" so that all community members could see what it said and why it needed to be deleted. I also allowed community members who disagreed with my decision to delete the post to offer their comments on my decision. Several offered strong criticisms of my decision. Their words are available for review at the SWR board to this day.

I have never and will never take action to block the expression of any viewpoint at any board. I have and will object to posting practices aimed at blocking the expression of viewpoints that those doing the blocking do not want others to be able to hear.

[Marshac]

This is hilarious... everyone is concerned about the topic of religion blowing up into a huge debate, and having dodged that bullet, we tangent into censorship.

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Nice spin. However...incorrect.

Nobody (to the best of my knowledge) has ever removed or disallowed any posts other than their own.

As far as the thread you mentioned, it was simply another one of your efforts to troll. You yourself, posing as a second person made the "request" to 'hear more'...in violation of board rules. Everyone and anyone who wanted to say something could have. In a similar vein, the community is allowed to object to trolling and other deleterious behavior.

On the other matter, if my memory serves, SalaryGuru provided a post using good logic and detailed data that called your so-called "SWR" approach into question. Which frankly isnt that hard to do. You removed that post from the thread. Almost everyone that used that board left as a result of your participation there and/or that censoring action.

Lastly, theres a big difference between 'expressing a viewpoint' and creating an explosive controversy with the intent to gain some sort of enjoyment from the dissent. Especially when the "expresser" has been kicked off every single ER board except this one specifically due to that bad behavior.

The people who inhabit these boards are, or wish to someday be, retired (early) and living off an investment strategy. This is their life, the roof over their head, the food in their bellies. It is not a place where a guy who is still working and his sidekick who lives off an indexed pension to play their little games. Your "strategy" doesnt work, and wont work. That you arent dependent on it is the most telling aspect.

Helping people who havent had any experience with you and your little games understand that isnt censorship.

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Quote:

This is hilarious... everyone is concerned about the topic of religion blowing up into a huge debate, and having dodged that bullet, we tangent into censorship.

Indeed...I think every strong feeling in ones body has the same root.

You dig at one, you're likely to get them all.

[hocus]

As far as the thread you mentioned, it was simply another one of your efforts to troll.

Here is a link to the "Cheap Fun Stuff" thread:

http://early-retirement.org/cgi-bin/...num=1097052682

You yourself, posing as a second person made the "request" to 'hear more'...in violation of board rules.

If you have any evidence to back up this assertion, please come forward with it, TH.

Everyone and anyone who wanted to say something could have.

JWR1945 has worked full-time for close to three years now helping this board community learn what it needs to know to make sense of the SWR matter. His reward? He was banned for life from raddr-pages.com before putting up his first post there.

Those who have posted in an honest and informed way on the SWR matter have been made to pay a big price for doing so. It is not reasonable to expect that all community members with an interest in seeing reasoned discussion go forward would be willing to pay the same price that JWR1945 and I have paid.

In the early days of the SWR discussions, there were scores of posters who expressed excitement at the new ideas being put on the table. Many thanked me for having put up the May 13, 2002, post that kicked things off. If there are any community members who would like to see links, please ask and I will provide them. (I will be going out to dinner shortly, so I will not be able to do so until tomorrow morning.)
*
Almost everyone that used that board left as a result of your participation there and/or that censoring action.

The SWR Research Group board (at NoFeeBoards.com) has had over 2900 posts put to it. There are a number of community members who have expressed thanks for the great research work done by JWR1945. Again, if there are community members who would like to see links, please ask and I will provide them tomorrow.
*
Theres a big difference between 'expressing a viewpoint' and creating an explosive controversy with the intent to gain some sort of enjoyment from the dissent.

There shouldn't be any controversy. My views are in accord with the views of William Bernstein. Bernstein says that the methodology used in the REHP study is "highly misleading." He says that the SWR for a high-stock portfolio at the top of the recent bubble was 2 percent. The SWR is a mathematical construct. You look at the data and that is the number you get. There are three different researchers now (Bernstein, raddr, and JWR1945) who have looked at the data and come up with a number in the same general ballpark.

The reason why there has been "explosive controversy" is that intercst and his supporters have responded to posts reporting what the data says in inappropriate ways. They should be asked to knock off the funny business.

Especially when the "expresser" has been kicked off every single ER board except this one specifically due to that bad behavior.

I have never once been kicked off of any discussion board for bad behavior. I have been kicked off boards because I reported accurately what the historical data says re SWRs. At both the NFB board and at the Motley Fool board, the site administrator never accused me of a single violation of the site's rules. In both cases, I was thanked for my contributions to the board. In both cases, I was subsequently reinstated.
*
Your "strategy" doesnt work

That's for community members to decide after they are permitted to hear about it in reasoned discussions. Those who turn any thread that reports on what Bernstein says re SWRs into a circus event are blocking community members who would like to be able to decide for themselves the ability to do so.

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Blow me.

[arrete]

Ah, kayaks?

arrete

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Foldable ones that also can be made into bicycles, replete with color laser printers, piloted by honking geese.

In this case, 40 feet underwater preferable.

[unclemick]

Hey!!!!

I remember kayaks.

Heh, heh, heh.

Sex, politics, religion - never discussed. At least that's what the Met life salesman told my parents - and then told my Dad a really lame Farmer's daughter joke while Mom was out of the room. I was eleven - so I didn't get it. Dad's only comment later - the ones at the Barbershop are better.

Well, guess I will weigh in, although I must confess
I was considering going off to look for Ted.
He said he wasn't coming back and indeed he did not.
A man of his word. I don't like censorship in any form.
Big supporter of The First Amendment. If you really believe it, just let it fly. If someone doesn't like it, well
they can remove themselves from your rants. IMHO,
if anyone needs to find someone to "ban", they should probably start with me. After all, I will say about anything to just about anyone, with no regard whatsoever for their
feelings, PC ideas, liberal sensibilities, or much of anything else.
So sue me. BTW, I suggest you encourage argument
and debate here. What's a forum for anyway?

Elvis has left the building