Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 10:57 am
"I have not seen any weekly posts on Dorys board either"
I first put forward the idea of me writing a regularly appearing "column" of on-topic, non-SWR topics at the REHP board. I was going to refer to it as "the Wednesday Post" and largely draw on on material I first put forward during the REHP board's Golden Age to produce it.
The reaction at the REHP board was hostile, to say the least. Not entirely so. There was that 49 percent of the board community that expressed a desire for on-topic debate. But the side opposing on-topic debate was much louder and stronger in expression of its viewpoint. There were several posters who put forward threats, suggesting that there would be a price to be paid for on-topic posting at that board, even on-topic posting that did not refer to the SWR matter.
I elected to move the Wednesday Post to the Early Retirement Forum. Here is a link to the most recent Wednesday Post put up there and to the thread that followed from it.
http://early-retirement.org/cgi-bin/yab ... 1097052682
Brewer12345: "Drop dead. Keep this recycled crap confined to the SWR board, worthless troll. DORY!!! Please, I beg you, ban this cretin!!! "
hocus: "It reflects poorly on all of us that we permit comments like this to pollute the board. "
Brewer12345: "That's pretty funny, coming from a psychopath like you. Go away, troll. "
Whackamole: "brewer, shut up. "
TH: "I could swear that sounds like... Yes it is... I cant believe it...Old honking!!!!!! "
hocus: "You're capable of better, TH. You too, Brewer12345. "
Mikey: "Didn't you guys get your fill of bullying back in the fifth grade at St. Alphonse? What is the complaint with this post on free fun? "
Beachbumz: "Hocus, thank you for the post! I'm sure I read this back in 2000 when I was dreaming of retiring early, but it is always good to revisit topics like this, especially now that I have time to do some of these things (work really does get in the way). "
TH: "Simple. He's a troll. A subtle one, to be sure, but a troll nonetheless. He's simply using a technique that unfortunately, I think I taught him. Make some nice posts to build some good will until the next rampage."
hocus: "Anyone who looks at my posting record will come to the conclusion that I am the most "subtle" troll in the history of the internet. So subtle am I in my trolling skills that for a number of years the FAQ statement at the Motley Fool board included a recommendation to "read any post by hocus. They are all at the top of the most recommended list." I am an extraordinarily subtle troll indeed.
"What I really am is a poster with an intense desire to learn all that I can and to teach all that I can about the subject of how to win financial freedom early in life. There was a time when in my judgment the best way to achieve those goals was to post on "soft-side" topics. Since May 13, 2002, my focus has been on investing topics (in particular the SWR topic). The soft side is important. So is the hard side. SWRs matter.
"SWRs matter enough so that as a community we should all want to be sure that the information presented on these boards re SWRs is accurate. It's because I believe that that TH and some others label me a troll. So be it. I'm posting what I honestly believe on the question of SWRs and on all other questions that I address on this board. I've done that since the first day and I will continue to do it, charges of trollery be damned.
"What the shouts of "troll, troll!" tell me is that the DCMs (defenders of the conventional methodology) lack confidence that the historical stock-return data supports their case. If they had a case on the merits, we would have heard their response to William Bernstein's claim that the conventional methodology is a "highly misleading" way to determine SWRs at times of high valuation. It has been over two years since I put up the "What Bernstein Says" post and we have not heard a reasoned response from the DCMs on the Bernstein statements to this day. Community members whose primary concern is early retirement know what that means. It is for the benefit of community members whose primary concern is early retirement (as well as for my own benefit, of course) that I put forward my posts.
"I have over 2,500 posts in my file and there has never been anything even remotely resembling a rampage yet. If I am true to myself, there never will be. But I will of course continue to post in an honest and informed way on the SWR question in appropriate places and times. TH doesn't like that reality one little bit. That's too bad. "
Brewer12345: "Yee, Gods! Another 2500 blatherings just waiting to be recycled here? If Dory does get out the big 'ol ban stick and whack this moron with it soon, his server will collapse.
Mikey, this moron is perhaps the most destructive troll I have ever seen. Probably the best we could hope for is that everyone ignores him and he gives up and goes away. Personally, I think that the optimal solution (and the most realistic, given past history) is a ban. "
hocus: "My sense is that there is close to universal agreement that it would be a good idea if the DCMs would come to accept that we are no longer living in the summer of 1999. There was once a time when everyone who posted on the various boards thought that the REHP study accurately told us what the historical data says re SWRs. That day is past and it appears unlikely that it is ever coming back. It's not just me who has problems with the claim that a 4 percent take-out is "100 percent safe" for those with big stock allocations at today's valuation levels. There's JWR1945. And there's Bernstein. And there's Andrew Smithers, and Robert Shiller, and Rob Arnott, and all the other experts who have rejected the core assumption of the study. And there are the scores of community members who have found enough appeal in the data-based methodology to express a desire that reasoned discussion on SWRs be permitted.
If you don't like it that people are having these discussions, it is your right to refrain from participating in them, Brewer1234. In an ideal world, we would benefit from your input. But if that is not to be, it's not to be. Where you cross the line is in deciding not only that you are not going to participate, but in engaging in disruptions that make it unpleasant for others to participate (in this case in a discussion not even relating to the SWR matter).
You worry about you and let others worry about others, OK? This is a public discussion board, and the Retire Early community is a big and diverse community. It's not reasonable to expect that everyone is going to agree with you on every topic that comes up. Participate in the threads you like, and, yes, as you suggest above, ignore the ones you don't. Just remember that "ignore" and "disrupt" are different things and you and me will be the best of internet friends despite any differences we might continue to have re what the historical stock-return data says.
I think that is probably the best way to go with this, given the circumstances facing us. And I would like to be internet friends with you too, TH. So I hope that you too will make an effort to keep in mind the important distinction between "ignore" and "disrupt." It does none of us any good for any of us to get in the habit of passing too frequently from one side of that line to the other. Make sense, old buddy?"
Brewer12345: "Today I think I will pull out and examine my belly button lint in front of several senior colleagues and some clients. "
TH: "I'm going to respond to this primarily for the benefit of those who are uncertain about your motives and methods.
"A while ago, I supported Hocus' right to his opinions and expressing them...to the point of saying I would leave if he were banned.
"He called me a hero for this. I didnt feel heroic, because I had never lived through any of his trolling events and wasnt present at the many bannings on other boards. But he told me he had had a substance problem and been a little out of control, and now he wanted a second chance to be part of the community. I'm a sucker for tough luck stories.
"I wanted to be open minded. I inquired about his ideas, his thought processes, his "new tool" for helping calculate SWR's.
"There were some good ideas, but also some big huge flaming holes. And then came the thread hijackings. Not that i'm against that, I'm a serial hijacker. But I got kinda sick of every single thread on that board turning into a discussion on safe withdrawal rates and then turning into a discussion about Hocus.
"When I tried to address the holes in logic and apparent gaps in the plans, my issues were shunted aside. When I persisted, I was subtley attacked...a little jab here, a little jab there...by him and several of his alter ego's. Yes, he posts under more than one name, here and elsewhere. When I ultimately became frustrated and called him out, then came the innocence. Without reading all the threads and putting together all the bits and pieces, it looked like he was a nice innocent guy facing someone out of control that was over-reacting. He's really very good at what he does, I imagine because he's had lots of experience.
"So I told him I couldnt support him anymore, and why. He was completely nonplussed. A simple "okey dokey", and I was no longer called a "hero", I was now an asshole.
"With that, it became clear to me. Someone who really had something to say, wanted to be heard and had very little support would have wanted to understand why I no longer wished to support him. Would have tried to heal that rift ASAP.
"Of course, he didnt. Because he isnt interested in being a part of a community. He isnt interested in developing and sharing ideas. He's intererested in attention and disruption. No more, no less.
"This is a pattern repeated on many, many boards. A pleasant start. Progressive upticking of the "swr" agenda. Some comments about why Intercst is wrong, lies and hides things that turn into full blown hatefests. The paranoia. Alienation and attacking any dissenters. Thread hijacking. Making claims that people support him or follow his "ideas" or use his "methodologies", followed by that person saying they do nothing of the kind. Rising frustration and annoyance in the community. A ban.
"Whether he's looney, bipolar, has MPD, a substance abuse problem, or whatever it is, I'm about done trying to fix the situation, or trying to fix him. Following his "ideas" and "tools" will leave you washing out tin foil and eating cheap dog food well before you expire. Responding to him here or anywhere else is simply feeding the beast.
"Thats it, I'm done talking to or about the goose that eats the golden eggs and leaves droppings everywhere he goes.
"I implore you to do the same. Ignoring it does work. Make sure you ignore its alter ego's too. Look for people who only show up to have a conversation with it, or to start one, then disappear until the next bout. Usually low post counts.
"So in response to the above...if you dont ignore, it will disrupt. "
hocus: "That was nicely done, Flipstress. Thanks for sharing, TH. "
Skylark: "He certainly seems to have you under his spell, TH. When it all gets to be too much, I just hum the "Theme to Star Trek."
Blazerjeremy: "I am a long standing lurker to this board. I rarely post but enjoy the info on this board every week. I would like to second the call for Hocus to be banned. He is definately a troll. And never seems to have anything important to say that isn't self agrandizing. If himself is included in the term "important" then he has lots of important stuff to talk about. "
Lurker2: "He's done this many times before. He's far too busy and important to take the time to compose something current. This is like dropping off a cassette tape of your thoughts and opinions at the coffee-shop because you're SO important that you're above sitting down to have a cup of coffee with the guys - and you know they need to hear what you have to say. If he tried this in my coffee-shop, the guys would call him an a**hole and throw him out on his head.
Hocus, I hate to say it, but the rejection you receive has nothing to do with defenders of any methodology. It's purely personal - people dislike you intensely. And you just keep feeding the flames with actions like this, so you have nobody to blame but yourself. "
hocus: "The reality is that I have made huge contributions to the various board communities, blazerjeremy. Intercst was in a technical sense the founder of the Motley Fool board (he is the one who sent the e-mail that got the board set up), but it was my posts which built that board into one that was often referrred to as the most thought-provoking on the face of the internet. That was a major accomplishment of mine and I am of course proud of it. It is of course embarassing to me to see what the board has become today (last week there was a poll in which 51 percent of the community there voted against on-topic debate).
"Dory36 got his start on the Motley Fool board; I think it is fair to call this board a spin-off of it. The NoFeeBoards.com board is also a spin-off of the Motley Fool board. So the Motley Fool board is part of out history, whether we want to acknowledge it or not. By no stretch of the imagination do I say that I was the only poster who did important things to build the Motley Fool board. Intercst did important things. I do not share in the "cult of personality" re intercst that seems to influence a good number, but I certainly acknowledge his importance in shaping the early days of our movement. And there were hundreds of others who helped aspiring early retirees in important ways and that revealed to this community its awesome potential to do good.
"I am proud of my Retire Early contributions. I understand that it is not the ordinary procedure for me to be the one to tout them, and I think that the ordinary procedure makes sense in ordinary times. These are not ordinary times. There are posters in our community who have made it their business to disrupt any thread which I put forward, SWR-related or non-SWR-related. They do this because I told the truth about SWRs and because they are loyal to intercst, who for obvious reasons very much does not want the truth re SWRs to be told. These people hurt our community with their actions. SWRs matter. People planning early retirement need to know what the historical data says re SWRs.
"They need to know a lot of other things too, of course. It's not all about SWRs. When I put up some old non-SWR posts that received a good reaction the first time around, I help people learn about the subject matter of this board. When the threads are not disrupted, exchanges take place that help me learn. That's what it is all about, learning together.
"The DCMs don't like it one bit to see learning take place on threads in which the hocus name is prominent. They think to themselves: "hocus has helped a lot of people learn about this stuff in the past, so there's no reason not to believe that he will be able to do it again, and then those people might take a look at the historical data and see that he was right all along in what he was saying re SWRs." DCMs don't like it that that is what is likely to happen. I do. I think that it is important that the many community members who have expressed a desire for reasoned debate on the SWR topic (along with many other topics, of course) see those desires realized. If it appears that putting up some old non-SWR posts can help bring that about (while also generating lots of non-SWR learning experiences) I am happy to give the idea my best shot.
"Perhaps it will work. Perhaps not. It can't possibly do any harm. Except to the DCMs. And you know what? In the long run, it doesn't even do any harm to them. In the long run, they came here because they want to learn about the subject matter of the board too. So let's all get about the business of Learning Together! "
hocus: "I am responding to comments made on the threads generated from the re-postings, Lurker2. So I am very much sitting down at the table and drinking down the hot stuff along with all my buds.
"Not all posts are worthy of recycling, to be sure. But some are. The posts that I am putting up on Wednesday mornings are posts that generated good reactions the first time around, either in that they received a high number of recommendations or in that they provoked particularly insightful or strongly felt responses. The majority of this board community has never seen these posts, and they would need to pay Motley Fool $30 for the privilege of doing so if they wanted to take a look at them. What possible harm could come from "liberating" them from the money grubbing claws of Motley Fool by posting them here? (That's a joke, I have no problem with the idea of Motley Fool charging for use of its boards.)
"Not every Wednesday post that I put forward is going to change the course of Western civilization. My guess is that it will only be a small percentage of them that will do that (another joke!). But none of the words I will put forward in these posts have the potential to do anyone here any harm. Of that much I am certain. I believe that it is entirely possible that a few of them might do one or two community members a little bit of good.
"The rejection you receive has nothing to do with defenders of any methodology. It's purely personal - people dislike you intensely.
"There may be a few who have a personal dislike of me because I was the one who brought the SWR issue to the table. Most do not. There are a good number who pretend to dislike me. A poster named 2828 once said that he wanted to feed me through a trash compacter. More recently he said that he wishes me the best and that he is impressed by the extent of my research efforts on the SWR question. 2828 is a more typical community member than you, Lurker2. I've been around since the first days, and I can assure you that there is a good bit of support for that assertion awaiting your review in the Post Archives.
"It's not personal, except perhaps in a few cases. It's tactical. I want to see honest and informed debate on SWRs not only beccause the SWR issue is so important; I also want to see it because I find it demeaning to the entire community that we go along with restrictions on our agenda imposed on us by puffed-up ego-case board founders (I obviously am not referring to Dory36 here). The community of aspiring early retirees has a right to talk about what it wants to talk about, the hurt feelings of board founders be damned. That's my take. I believe that it is very important that this point be established if our movement is to achieve its full potential.
"We are a community. Communities go through ups and downs. We ran into some trouble re the SWR matter because of some unusual and difficult factual realities that pertain to it. We will find a way to work through it. We will move on to other things, and we will one day look back on all the silliness that was engaged in to block our forward progress and express astonishment at the craziness of the road we traveled.
"This is how human beings cope with change. It always has been and it always will be. It feels intense to us because this is not history we are reading about in a book, it is history that we are creating through our own efforts. But what has happened here is much in line with what has happened to other communities at other times in history who were faced with other forks in the road and had to take some time to digest the implications of the choices before them. "
Guest: "Hey folks, can't we just get along?
As a long-time reader from the Motley Fool days, I like hocus' posts and find the hostility to him annoying. As ERs (or ER hopefuls) we are already on non-traditional paths. We shouldn't feel threatened by anyone, particularly someone who can represent his/her point of view so well.
"I, for one, want to keep reading what hocus puts out, old or new. Please let me! "
Brewer12345: "Hey asshole, we are laughing at you, not with you. Go away. You are not liked or wanted here. "
UncleMick: "kayaking - grey overcast day, light rain, chop on :ake Ponchartrain - stirs the the old Washington State blood. 1/4 mile out the kitchen window and 5 miles across open water off the back porch are entrances to the bayou's of the Wildlife Refuge.
"Nobody but nobody has a kayak around here - flatboats, fishing boats, sailboats, powerboats, and pirogue's for duck hunters.
"Does anybody out there kayak? How would one get started. Thinking room for a man and his golden retriever - and perhaps a way to fish a little. The lake is subject to sudden storms so 2-4 rollers might catch you on open water periodically.
"Could use the phys. ed. - gyms and jogging are a turn off. "
[A bunch of Kayak posts follow]
hocus: "There's a poster in this community who said: "I for one, want to keep reading what hocus puts out, old or new. Please let me!"
"I am going to do what I can to be responsive to that poster's wishes. I will be putting up a non-SWR on-topic post at the "Young Dreamers" section of this board next Wednesday. "
TH: "Please stop feeding the troll. It made a 'guest' post in support of itself and now its responding to that in the hopes it will rile someone up enough to respond.
"I second Nord's request for an "ignore" feature, if not an outright ban. Not because I cant ignore it, but because a lot of other people cant. "
hocus: " of course have no objection to a tool that helps community members ignore certain threads or certain posters or whatever. The reality, however, is that, as you say here, the "ignore" idea never works when dealing with the particular matter that is the cause of the trouble spoiling this thread.
"There's a reason for that. The reason for that is the elephant sitting in the living room that everyone sees but that not many yet want to talk about frankly. I believe that to achieve our potential we need to figure out a way to talk about it. We are a creative people, and I believe that we will figure out a way that will work to the benefit of all.
"I'll do my part. That's all that I can do. The rest is up to all of you. We are a community. We solve our problems as a community. Or we solve them not at all. "
Nords: "Hocus, you've used up all your goodwill. You've run your own board and manipulated it beyond all moderator's ethics. You've created numerous login identities on this board and schizophrenically orchestrated "support" for yourself. You've even added a "Guest" post here as a desperate attempt to sway public opinion.
"Once again I suggest you go somewhere else. If you don't want to leave (and if you aren't banned by the moderator), then I recommend you stop recycling your old posts and limit yourself to on-topic responses. The rest of us know where to find your old posts if we care to.
"Dory? "
Brewer12345: " Please, Dory, please! "
hocus: "I think that having Dory36's input would be helpful, Nords. At least we agree on that much. "
Arrete: "I liked reading about kayaks more"
[Lots of Kayak posts follow]
hocus: "I'm a fan of on-topic discussion. That's my thing. So I'm not jumping up and down and about this. But I've seen worse. "
Skylark: "Kayaks can get really warm in the sun. At least canoes give you some fresh air. Although then you have no sun protection. "
I first put forward the idea of me writing a regularly appearing "column" of on-topic, non-SWR topics at the REHP board. I was going to refer to it as "the Wednesday Post" and largely draw on on material I first put forward during the REHP board's Golden Age to produce it.
The reaction at the REHP board was hostile, to say the least. Not entirely so. There was that 49 percent of the board community that expressed a desire for on-topic debate. But the side opposing on-topic debate was much louder and stronger in expression of its viewpoint. There were several posters who put forward threats, suggesting that there would be a price to be paid for on-topic posting at that board, even on-topic posting that did not refer to the SWR matter.
I elected to move the Wednesday Post to the Early Retirement Forum. Here is a link to the most recent Wednesday Post put up there and to the thread that followed from it.
http://early-retirement.org/cgi-bin/yab ... 1097052682
Brewer12345: "Drop dead. Keep this recycled crap confined to the SWR board, worthless troll. DORY!!! Please, I beg you, ban this cretin!!! "
hocus: "It reflects poorly on all of us that we permit comments like this to pollute the board. "
Brewer12345: "That's pretty funny, coming from a psychopath like you. Go away, troll. "
Whackamole: "brewer, shut up. "
TH: "I could swear that sounds like... Yes it is... I cant believe it...Old honking!!!!!! "
hocus: "You're capable of better, TH. You too, Brewer12345. "
Mikey: "Didn't you guys get your fill of bullying back in the fifth grade at St. Alphonse? What is the complaint with this post on free fun? "
Beachbumz: "Hocus, thank you for the post! I'm sure I read this back in 2000 when I was dreaming of retiring early, but it is always good to revisit topics like this, especially now that I have time to do some of these things (work really does get in the way). "
TH: "Simple. He's a troll. A subtle one, to be sure, but a troll nonetheless. He's simply using a technique that unfortunately, I think I taught him. Make some nice posts to build some good will until the next rampage."
hocus: "Anyone who looks at my posting record will come to the conclusion that I am the most "subtle" troll in the history of the internet. So subtle am I in my trolling skills that for a number of years the FAQ statement at the Motley Fool board included a recommendation to "read any post by hocus. They are all at the top of the most recommended list." I am an extraordinarily subtle troll indeed.
"What I really am is a poster with an intense desire to learn all that I can and to teach all that I can about the subject of how to win financial freedom early in life. There was a time when in my judgment the best way to achieve those goals was to post on "soft-side" topics. Since May 13, 2002, my focus has been on investing topics (in particular the SWR topic). The soft side is important. So is the hard side. SWRs matter.
"SWRs matter enough so that as a community we should all want to be sure that the information presented on these boards re SWRs is accurate. It's because I believe that that TH and some others label me a troll. So be it. I'm posting what I honestly believe on the question of SWRs and on all other questions that I address on this board. I've done that since the first day and I will continue to do it, charges of trollery be damned.
"What the shouts of "troll, troll!" tell me is that the DCMs (defenders of the conventional methodology) lack confidence that the historical stock-return data supports their case. If they had a case on the merits, we would have heard their response to William Bernstein's claim that the conventional methodology is a "highly misleading" way to determine SWRs at times of high valuation. It has been over two years since I put up the "What Bernstein Says" post and we have not heard a reasoned response from the DCMs on the Bernstein statements to this day. Community members whose primary concern is early retirement know what that means. It is for the benefit of community members whose primary concern is early retirement (as well as for my own benefit, of course) that I put forward my posts.
"I have over 2,500 posts in my file and there has never been anything even remotely resembling a rampage yet. If I am true to myself, there never will be. But I will of course continue to post in an honest and informed way on the SWR question in appropriate places and times. TH doesn't like that reality one little bit. That's too bad. "
Brewer12345: "Yee, Gods! Another 2500 blatherings just waiting to be recycled here? If Dory does get out the big 'ol ban stick and whack this moron with it soon, his server will collapse.
Mikey, this moron is perhaps the most destructive troll I have ever seen. Probably the best we could hope for is that everyone ignores him and he gives up and goes away. Personally, I think that the optimal solution (and the most realistic, given past history) is a ban. "
hocus: "My sense is that there is close to universal agreement that it would be a good idea if the DCMs would come to accept that we are no longer living in the summer of 1999. There was once a time when everyone who posted on the various boards thought that the REHP study accurately told us what the historical data says re SWRs. That day is past and it appears unlikely that it is ever coming back. It's not just me who has problems with the claim that a 4 percent take-out is "100 percent safe" for those with big stock allocations at today's valuation levels. There's JWR1945. And there's Bernstein. And there's Andrew Smithers, and Robert Shiller, and Rob Arnott, and all the other experts who have rejected the core assumption of the study. And there are the scores of community members who have found enough appeal in the data-based methodology to express a desire that reasoned discussion on SWRs be permitted.
If you don't like it that people are having these discussions, it is your right to refrain from participating in them, Brewer1234. In an ideal world, we would benefit from your input. But if that is not to be, it's not to be. Where you cross the line is in deciding not only that you are not going to participate, but in engaging in disruptions that make it unpleasant for others to participate (in this case in a discussion not even relating to the SWR matter).
You worry about you and let others worry about others, OK? This is a public discussion board, and the Retire Early community is a big and diverse community. It's not reasonable to expect that everyone is going to agree with you on every topic that comes up. Participate in the threads you like, and, yes, as you suggest above, ignore the ones you don't. Just remember that "ignore" and "disrupt" are different things and you and me will be the best of internet friends despite any differences we might continue to have re what the historical stock-return data says.
I think that is probably the best way to go with this, given the circumstances facing us. And I would like to be internet friends with you too, TH. So I hope that you too will make an effort to keep in mind the important distinction between "ignore" and "disrupt." It does none of us any good for any of us to get in the habit of passing too frequently from one side of that line to the other. Make sense, old buddy?"
Brewer12345: "Today I think I will pull out and examine my belly button lint in front of several senior colleagues and some clients. "
TH: "I'm going to respond to this primarily for the benefit of those who are uncertain about your motives and methods.
"A while ago, I supported Hocus' right to his opinions and expressing them...to the point of saying I would leave if he were banned.
"He called me a hero for this. I didnt feel heroic, because I had never lived through any of his trolling events and wasnt present at the many bannings on other boards. But he told me he had had a substance problem and been a little out of control, and now he wanted a second chance to be part of the community. I'm a sucker for tough luck stories.
"I wanted to be open minded. I inquired about his ideas, his thought processes, his "new tool" for helping calculate SWR's.
"There were some good ideas, but also some big huge flaming holes. And then came the thread hijackings. Not that i'm against that, I'm a serial hijacker. But I got kinda sick of every single thread on that board turning into a discussion on safe withdrawal rates and then turning into a discussion about Hocus.
"When I tried to address the holes in logic and apparent gaps in the plans, my issues were shunted aside. When I persisted, I was subtley attacked...a little jab here, a little jab there...by him and several of his alter ego's. Yes, he posts under more than one name, here and elsewhere. When I ultimately became frustrated and called him out, then came the innocence. Without reading all the threads and putting together all the bits and pieces, it looked like he was a nice innocent guy facing someone out of control that was over-reacting. He's really very good at what he does, I imagine because he's had lots of experience.
"So I told him I couldnt support him anymore, and why. He was completely nonplussed. A simple "okey dokey", and I was no longer called a "hero", I was now an asshole.
"With that, it became clear to me. Someone who really had something to say, wanted to be heard and had very little support would have wanted to understand why I no longer wished to support him. Would have tried to heal that rift ASAP.
"Of course, he didnt. Because he isnt interested in being a part of a community. He isnt interested in developing and sharing ideas. He's intererested in attention and disruption. No more, no less.
"This is a pattern repeated on many, many boards. A pleasant start. Progressive upticking of the "swr" agenda. Some comments about why Intercst is wrong, lies and hides things that turn into full blown hatefests. The paranoia. Alienation and attacking any dissenters. Thread hijacking. Making claims that people support him or follow his "ideas" or use his "methodologies", followed by that person saying they do nothing of the kind. Rising frustration and annoyance in the community. A ban.
"Whether he's looney, bipolar, has MPD, a substance abuse problem, or whatever it is, I'm about done trying to fix the situation, or trying to fix him. Following his "ideas" and "tools" will leave you washing out tin foil and eating cheap dog food well before you expire. Responding to him here or anywhere else is simply feeding the beast.
"Thats it, I'm done talking to or about the goose that eats the golden eggs and leaves droppings everywhere he goes.
"I implore you to do the same. Ignoring it does work. Make sure you ignore its alter ego's too. Look for people who only show up to have a conversation with it, or to start one, then disappear until the next bout. Usually low post counts.
"So in response to the above...if you dont ignore, it will disrupt. "
hocus: "That was nicely done, Flipstress. Thanks for sharing, TH. "
Skylark: "He certainly seems to have you under his spell, TH. When it all gets to be too much, I just hum the "Theme to Star Trek."
Blazerjeremy: "I am a long standing lurker to this board. I rarely post but enjoy the info on this board every week. I would like to second the call for Hocus to be banned. He is definately a troll. And never seems to have anything important to say that isn't self agrandizing. If himself is included in the term "important" then he has lots of important stuff to talk about. "
Lurker2: "He's done this many times before. He's far too busy and important to take the time to compose something current. This is like dropping off a cassette tape of your thoughts and opinions at the coffee-shop because you're SO important that you're above sitting down to have a cup of coffee with the guys - and you know they need to hear what you have to say. If he tried this in my coffee-shop, the guys would call him an a**hole and throw him out on his head.
Hocus, I hate to say it, but the rejection you receive has nothing to do with defenders of any methodology. It's purely personal - people dislike you intensely. And you just keep feeding the flames with actions like this, so you have nobody to blame but yourself. "
hocus: "The reality is that I have made huge contributions to the various board communities, blazerjeremy. Intercst was in a technical sense the founder of the Motley Fool board (he is the one who sent the e-mail that got the board set up), but it was my posts which built that board into one that was often referrred to as the most thought-provoking on the face of the internet. That was a major accomplishment of mine and I am of course proud of it. It is of course embarassing to me to see what the board has become today (last week there was a poll in which 51 percent of the community there voted against on-topic debate).
"Dory36 got his start on the Motley Fool board; I think it is fair to call this board a spin-off of it. The NoFeeBoards.com board is also a spin-off of the Motley Fool board. So the Motley Fool board is part of out history, whether we want to acknowledge it or not. By no stretch of the imagination do I say that I was the only poster who did important things to build the Motley Fool board. Intercst did important things. I do not share in the "cult of personality" re intercst that seems to influence a good number, but I certainly acknowledge his importance in shaping the early days of our movement. And there were hundreds of others who helped aspiring early retirees in important ways and that revealed to this community its awesome potential to do good.
"I am proud of my Retire Early contributions. I understand that it is not the ordinary procedure for me to be the one to tout them, and I think that the ordinary procedure makes sense in ordinary times. These are not ordinary times. There are posters in our community who have made it their business to disrupt any thread which I put forward, SWR-related or non-SWR-related. They do this because I told the truth about SWRs and because they are loyal to intercst, who for obvious reasons very much does not want the truth re SWRs to be told. These people hurt our community with their actions. SWRs matter. People planning early retirement need to know what the historical data says re SWRs.
"They need to know a lot of other things too, of course. It's not all about SWRs. When I put up some old non-SWR posts that received a good reaction the first time around, I help people learn about the subject matter of this board. When the threads are not disrupted, exchanges take place that help me learn. That's what it is all about, learning together.
"The DCMs don't like it one bit to see learning take place on threads in which the hocus name is prominent. They think to themselves: "hocus has helped a lot of people learn about this stuff in the past, so there's no reason not to believe that he will be able to do it again, and then those people might take a look at the historical data and see that he was right all along in what he was saying re SWRs." DCMs don't like it that that is what is likely to happen. I do. I think that it is important that the many community members who have expressed a desire for reasoned debate on the SWR topic (along with many other topics, of course) see those desires realized. If it appears that putting up some old non-SWR posts can help bring that about (while also generating lots of non-SWR learning experiences) I am happy to give the idea my best shot.
"Perhaps it will work. Perhaps not. It can't possibly do any harm. Except to the DCMs. And you know what? In the long run, it doesn't even do any harm to them. In the long run, they came here because they want to learn about the subject matter of the board too. So let's all get about the business of Learning Together! "
hocus: "I am responding to comments made on the threads generated from the re-postings, Lurker2. So I am very much sitting down at the table and drinking down the hot stuff along with all my buds.
"Not all posts are worthy of recycling, to be sure. But some are. The posts that I am putting up on Wednesday mornings are posts that generated good reactions the first time around, either in that they received a high number of recommendations or in that they provoked particularly insightful or strongly felt responses. The majority of this board community has never seen these posts, and they would need to pay Motley Fool $30 for the privilege of doing so if they wanted to take a look at them. What possible harm could come from "liberating" them from the money grubbing claws of Motley Fool by posting them here? (That's a joke, I have no problem with the idea of Motley Fool charging for use of its boards.)
"Not every Wednesday post that I put forward is going to change the course of Western civilization. My guess is that it will only be a small percentage of them that will do that (another joke!). But none of the words I will put forward in these posts have the potential to do anyone here any harm. Of that much I am certain. I believe that it is entirely possible that a few of them might do one or two community members a little bit of good.
"The rejection you receive has nothing to do with defenders of any methodology. It's purely personal - people dislike you intensely.
"There may be a few who have a personal dislike of me because I was the one who brought the SWR issue to the table. Most do not. There are a good number who pretend to dislike me. A poster named 2828 once said that he wanted to feed me through a trash compacter. More recently he said that he wishes me the best and that he is impressed by the extent of my research efforts on the SWR question. 2828 is a more typical community member than you, Lurker2. I've been around since the first days, and I can assure you that there is a good bit of support for that assertion awaiting your review in the Post Archives.
"It's not personal, except perhaps in a few cases. It's tactical. I want to see honest and informed debate on SWRs not only beccause the SWR issue is so important; I also want to see it because I find it demeaning to the entire community that we go along with restrictions on our agenda imposed on us by puffed-up ego-case board founders (I obviously am not referring to Dory36 here). The community of aspiring early retirees has a right to talk about what it wants to talk about, the hurt feelings of board founders be damned. That's my take. I believe that it is very important that this point be established if our movement is to achieve its full potential.
"We are a community. Communities go through ups and downs. We ran into some trouble re the SWR matter because of some unusual and difficult factual realities that pertain to it. We will find a way to work through it. We will move on to other things, and we will one day look back on all the silliness that was engaged in to block our forward progress and express astonishment at the craziness of the road we traveled.
"This is how human beings cope with change. It always has been and it always will be. It feels intense to us because this is not history we are reading about in a book, it is history that we are creating through our own efforts. But what has happened here is much in line with what has happened to other communities at other times in history who were faced with other forks in the road and had to take some time to digest the implications of the choices before them. "
Guest: "Hey folks, can't we just get along?
As a long-time reader from the Motley Fool days, I like hocus' posts and find the hostility to him annoying. As ERs (or ER hopefuls) we are already on non-traditional paths. We shouldn't feel threatened by anyone, particularly someone who can represent his/her point of view so well.
"I, for one, want to keep reading what hocus puts out, old or new. Please let me! "
Brewer12345: "Hey asshole, we are laughing at you, not with you. Go away. You are not liked or wanted here. "
UncleMick: "kayaking - grey overcast day, light rain, chop on :ake Ponchartrain - stirs the the old Washington State blood. 1/4 mile out the kitchen window and 5 miles across open water off the back porch are entrances to the bayou's of the Wildlife Refuge.
"Nobody but nobody has a kayak around here - flatboats, fishing boats, sailboats, powerboats, and pirogue's for duck hunters.
"Does anybody out there kayak? How would one get started. Thinking room for a man and his golden retriever - and perhaps a way to fish a little. The lake is subject to sudden storms so 2-4 rollers might catch you on open water periodically.
"Could use the phys. ed. - gyms and jogging are a turn off. "
[A bunch of Kayak posts follow]
hocus: "There's a poster in this community who said: "I for one, want to keep reading what hocus puts out, old or new. Please let me!"
"I am going to do what I can to be responsive to that poster's wishes. I will be putting up a non-SWR on-topic post at the "Young Dreamers" section of this board next Wednesday. "
TH: "Please stop feeding the troll. It made a 'guest' post in support of itself and now its responding to that in the hopes it will rile someone up enough to respond.
"I second Nord's request for an "ignore" feature, if not an outright ban. Not because I cant ignore it, but because a lot of other people cant. "
hocus: " of course have no objection to a tool that helps community members ignore certain threads or certain posters or whatever. The reality, however, is that, as you say here, the "ignore" idea never works when dealing with the particular matter that is the cause of the trouble spoiling this thread.
"There's a reason for that. The reason for that is the elephant sitting in the living room that everyone sees but that not many yet want to talk about frankly. I believe that to achieve our potential we need to figure out a way to talk about it. We are a creative people, and I believe that we will figure out a way that will work to the benefit of all.
"I'll do my part. That's all that I can do. The rest is up to all of you. We are a community. We solve our problems as a community. Or we solve them not at all. "
Nords: "Hocus, you've used up all your goodwill. You've run your own board and manipulated it beyond all moderator's ethics. You've created numerous login identities on this board and schizophrenically orchestrated "support" for yourself. You've even added a "Guest" post here as a desperate attempt to sway public opinion.
"Once again I suggest you go somewhere else. If you don't want to leave (and if you aren't banned by the moderator), then I recommend you stop recycling your old posts and limit yourself to on-topic responses. The rest of us know where to find your old posts if we care to.
"Dory? "
Brewer12345: " Please, Dory, please! "
hocus: "I think that having Dory36's input would be helpful, Nords. At least we agree on that much. "
Arrete: "I liked reading about kayaks more"
[Lots of Kayak posts follow]
hocus: "I'm a fan of on-topic discussion. That's my thing. So I'm not jumping up and down and about this. But I've seen worse. "
Skylark: "Kayaks can get really warm in the sun. At least canoes give you some fresh air. Although then you have no sun protection. "