ziggy29
Moderator Emeritus
And when you *know* it's rude and you do it anyway, that's a pretty telling statement about an individual. Not to mention resurrecting threads that were dead for nearly five years to do it.It is rude to gloat
And when you *know* it's rude and you do it anyway, that's a pretty telling statement about an individual. Not to mention resurrecting threads that were dead for nearly five years to do it.It is rude to gloat
This is true, but I think the ones that were being "treated rudely" were more often than not chiding the rest of us as blind morons for not seeing what was "obviously" coming ahead -- not just being bearish. These are the ones who were sometimes shouted down.I like it when old threads get re-visited. For one thing, we get to see how the personalities posting and the tenor of the board has changed over time.
Also many people like this guy were right, at least for a while, but were dismissed or at times even treated rudely.
It is actually ignorant to pretend that there is an answer to the problem of funding a long retirement. Maybe having our noses rubbed in poop might help us understand this idea.
I like it when old threads get re-visited. For one thing, we get to see how the personalities posting and the tenor of the board has changed over time.
Also many people like this guy were right, at least for a while, but were dismissed or at times even treated rudely. I think they do a service when they return to point out that at least in the intermediate time frame a lot of us emporers were running around naked.
It is actually ignorant to pretend that there is an answer to the problem of funding a long retirement. Maybe having our noses rubbed in poop might help us understand this idea.
Ha
Only a few posts and five years apart. That has to be a record in both communications discipline and at holding a grudge...Fred, looks like you've returned to the forum after a five year hiatus to do a little axe grinding. You're are a little too late - CFB and Hyper have moved on and no longer post here.
I dunno, I ER'd December 2002 following the dumb and simpleton approach of a diversified 60/40 allocation. Maybe balance is a bad word these days but the fact is, into my 7th year of ER, following a standard (actually 3.8% WD rate) and into the greatest stock/housing decline after the Great Depression, the pile is still bigger than when I retired. So exactly, what is the problem with picking an asset allocation you can live with and living with it?
Fred, looks like you've returned to the forum after a five year hiatus to do a little axe grinding. You're are a little too late - CFB and Hyper have moved on and no longer post here.
If you truly believe what you say, why are you posting here again after a five year silence - simply to annoy people?People simply believe what they want to regardless of the evidence, history, or professional opinion. Don't waste your time trying to changes their minds, you'll only annoy them- most of the time.