Doom and gloom SWR based on 1965-1982
- Thread starter amt
- Start date
cute fuzzy bunny
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Re: Doom and gloom SWR based on 1965-1982does
I'm a critic, and you do engage in abusive posting practices.
There, happy now?
Probably for the same reason why you insist on posting about it in threads that have nothing to do with SWR's.
Is there a reason why when pretty much everyone on a board tells you to take a hike, that you insist on pushing your horsepuckey anyhow?
Take up selling insurance door to door or something. Put that pointless insistence to some good use.
:
I'm a critic, and you do engage in abusive posting practices.
There, happy now?
Probably for the same reason why you insist on posting about it in threads that have nothing to do with SWR's.
Is there a reason why when pretty much everyone on a board tells you to take a hike, that you insist on pushing your horsepuckey anyhow?
Take up selling insurance door to door or something. Put that pointless insistence to some good use.
:***** asks,
Why can't those who do not have an interest in what we are saying just ignore the threads in which it is discussed?
Well, when someone asks a sincere question they hope that it will be followed by a focused on-topic discussion. If, however, you become involved it quickly degenerates into a nonsensical anti-intercst SWR tirade and the thread degenerates into a big cluster-f**k. So, you see, even if the original poster ignores you they still find that their thread has been trashed by you and those that want to argue with you and they never get the discussion that they'd hoped for. That will not happen at my forum.
Why can't those who do not have an interest in what we are saying just ignore the threads in which it is discussed?
Well, when someone asks a sincere question they hope that it will be followed by a focused on-topic discussion. If, however, you become involved it quickly degenerates into a nonsensical anti-intercst SWR tirade and the thread degenerates into a big cluster-f**k. So, you see, even if the original poster ignores you they still find that their thread has been trashed by you and those that want to argue with you and they never get the discussion that they'd hoped for. That will not happen at my forum.
Is there a reason why when pretty much everyone on a board tells you to take a hike, that you insist on pushing your horsepuckey anyhow?
I gave a link earlier in this thread to the "SWR of 6.21 Percent for 26 Years?" thread, noting that that thread contained a good bit of valuable substantive discussions. Here's one comment that was put forward during that thread.
AMT: "I'm awe struck by the depth of these discussions. I am very glad to be learning from you folks."
That's the sort of thing that lights my fire, TH. I chose writing as a career because I love to learn and I love to teach. Researching articles I write allows me to learn. Publishing them allows me to teach.
AMT has learned from these discussions. That's evident. If you want me to prepare a really, really long post, I can put one up listing scores of comments along the lines of the one I put forward above by AMT. I have learned a lot from SWR discussions, and hundreds of other community members have too.
I gave a link earlier in this thread to the "SWR of 6.21 Percent for 26 Years?" thread, noting that that thread contained a good bit of valuable substantive discussions. Here's one comment that was put forward during that thread.
AMT: "I'm awe struck by the depth of these discussions. I am very glad to be learning from you folks."
That's the sort of thing that lights my fire, TH. I chose writing as a career because I love to learn and I love to teach. Researching articles I write allows me to learn. Publishing them allows me to teach.
AMT has learned from these discussions. That's evident. If you want me to prepare a really, really long post, I can put one up listing scores of comments along the lines of the one I put forward above by AMT. I have learned a lot from SWR discussions, and hundreds of other community members have too.
If, however, you become involved it quickly degenerates into a nonsensical anti-intercst SWR tirade and the thread degenerates into a big cluster-f**k.
When intercst put a study up at his web site, he incurred an obligation to respond in reasonable ways to challenges to the methodology used in the study. That's just the way it is.
William Bernstein was not engaging in "a nonsensical anti-intercst tirade" when he reported in his book that the methodology used in the REHP study is "highly misleading" and generated an SWR number that is a full two percentage points off from the number you get when you look at the historical data that applies. He was putting forward an honest and informed report on the question to his readers.
That's what I have done. I have looked at the data and I have determined that the REHP study is not even close to being accurate, that it has never been accurate since the day it was published. That's something that aspiring early retirees need to know about when they are putting together their investment plans. It is legitimate board business to discuss the flaws of the REHP study.
When intercst put a study up at his web site, he incurred an obligation to respond in reasonable ways to challenges to the methodology used in the study. That's just the way it is.
William Bernstein was not engaging in "a nonsensical anti-intercst tirade" when he reported in his book that the methodology used in the REHP study is "highly misleading" and generated an SWR number that is a full two percentage points off from the number you get when you look at the historical data that applies. He was putting forward an honest and informed report on the question to his readers.
That's what I have done. I have looked at the data and I have determined that the REHP study is not even close to being accurate, that it has never been accurate since the day it was published. That's something that aspiring early retirees need to know about when they are putting together their investment plans. It is legitimate board business to discuss the flaws of the REHP study.
Use whatever planning number you like best and move on...
That's a very good statement. That statement suggests the attitude we need to take on this to achieve normalization of the discussions.
Those who like the REHP study just the way it is have a right to use these boards to discuss what they like about it. Those who see big flaws in the REHP study have a right to use these boards to discuss the flaws they see in it. We need to develop enough tolerance of other viewpoints that we can all work together to achieve the purposes for which the boards were created.
That's a very good statement. That statement suggests the attitude we need to take on this to achieve normalization of the discussions.
Those who like the REHP study just the way it is have a right to use these boards to discuss what they like about it. Those who see big flaws in the REHP study have a right to use these boards to discuss the flaws they see in it. We need to develop enough tolerance of other viewpoints that we can all work together to achieve the purposes for which the boards were created.
