couldn't have done better myself
ataloss
returning to lurking
_________________
Thanks to ES for all the hard work effort and expense he has put into NFB
Re: Our Web Site
Moderator: hocus2004
couldn't have done better myself
I doubt that ES is pleased by the comparison being drawn here, Ataloss.
There are two issues you raised in posts elsewhere yesterday that I would like to clear up a bit.
Mr. 007 put up a post noting that I describe a Multiply-by-25 Rule in my book "Passion Saving" to determine how much one needs to save to finance a specified expense for life. The "25" part of that is rooted in the assumption that I make throughout the book that one's investments will earn an annual real return of at least 4 percent (I note that it is a Multiply-by-33 Rule if one assumes a 3 percent return and a Multiply-by-20 Rule if one assumes a 5 percent return). You put forward the observation that this is implicit support on my part for your suggestion that it is always reasonable to use 4 percent as a "rule of thumb" approximation of the SWR that applies for a high-stock portoflio. You are wrong about this.
The 4 percent assumption that I use in my book is a real return assumption. It is NOT an SWR assumption. The SWR is a defined concept. There are times when the SWR for stocks is somewhere near 4 percent, there are times when it is a bit more or less than 4 percent, and there are times when the SWR for stocks is a lot more or a lot less than 4 percent.
I have no objection to people engaging in the practice of using 4 percent as an approximation of the SWR for stocks. I don't think it is a good idea, but it's a personal judgment call; it's none of my business how others put together their plans. It is a fact, however, that the REHP study 's finding that the SWR for S&P stocks is 4 percent regardless of the valuation level that applies at the start of the retirement is a false claim. The SWR is determined by making reference to historical data. There is no support in the historical data for the assumption that retirement starting-date valuation levels have zero effect on the SWR for stocks. The claim that it is "100 percent safe" to assume this is both absurd and dangerous.
The other one that needs to be cleared up relates to your past posting behavior. I have said that in my judgment intercst needs to be removed from the various FIRE/Retire Early/Passion Saving boards for those boards to achieve their potential. At earlier times, I had argued that intercst could be "saved" by community action. I now believe that there are too many abusiive posts in the record with his name on them for him to be "saved."
I have made two comments indicating that I think raddr is close to slipping from the "still can be saved" category into the "can no longer be saved" category. I don't feel as strongly that this is the case with raddr, but I am gravely concerned re his future participation in our community. He is one of our best posters of all time, and most of his best work is on the SWR matter. I very, very much do not want to lose him. That said, I see the same dynamic that earlier played out re intercst now being played out re raddr. A good contributor engages in deception because of some silly personal concern re the consequences of shooting straight, and ultimately finds himself on a path so dark that he is no longer able to find his way back to the light. I hope we don't lose raddr, but I am not optimistic on this one at this point.
You put up a post re this comment saying that you assumed that this meant that you are the only poster in our community who never had a chance of being "saved." That is of course not the message I intended to convey. I would rank you as the third most abusive poster in the history of our community. I think that you still can be "saved," Ataloss.
You have put up a larger number of abusive posts than Raddr. But I feel that your posting has not done as much damage as his. He has greater responsibilities for two reaasons: (1) he is a site administrator; and (2) he puts forward numbers-based research in many of his posts. I don't feel terribly optimistic re your posting future, Ataloss. But I am not quite so gravely concerned re your future as I am re raddr's. I do indeed believe that you can be "saved" and I very much hope that some responsible community members get about the business of taking the steps needed to see that this ends for you (and for the community as a whole) in a good way.
I doubt that ES is pleased by the comparison being drawn here, Ataloss.
There are two issues you raised in posts elsewhere yesterday that I would like to clear up a bit.
Mr. 007 put up a post noting that I describe a Multiply-by-25 Rule in my book "Passion Saving" to determine how much one needs to save to finance a specified expense for life. The "25" part of that is rooted in the assumption that I make throughout the book that one's investments will earn an annual real return of at least 4 percent (I note that it is a Multiply-by-33 Rule if one assumes a 3 percent return and a Multiply-by-20 Rule if one assumes a 5 percent return). You put forward the observation that this is implicit support on my part for your suggestion that it is always reasonable to use 4 percent as a "rule of thumb" approximation of the SWR that applies for a high-stock portoflio. You are wrong about this.
The 4 percent assumption that I use in my book is a real return assumption. It is NOT an SWR assumption. The SWR is a defined concept. There are times when the SWR for stocks is somewhere near 4 percent, there are times when it is a bit more or less than 4 percent, and there are times when the SWR for stocks is a lot more or a lot less than 4 percent.
I have no objection to people engaging in the practice of using 4 percent as an approximation of the SWR for stocks. I don't think it is a good idea, but it's a personal judgment call; it's none of my business how others put together their plans. It is a fact, however, that the REHP study 's finding that the SWR for S&P stocks is 4 percent regardless of the valuation level that applies at the start of the retirement is a false claim. The SWR is determined by making reference to historical data. There is no support in the historical data for the assumption that retirement starting-date valuation levels have zero effect on the SWR for stocks. The claim that it is "100 percent safe" to assume this is both absurd and dangerous.
The other one that needs to be cleared up relates to your past posting behavior. I have said that in my judgment intercst needs to be removed from the various FIRE/Retire Early/Passion Saving boards for those boards to achieve their potential. At earlier times, I had argued that intercst could be "saved" by community action. I now believe that there are too many abusiive posts in the record with his name on them for him to be "saved."
I have made two comments indicating that I think raddr is close to slipping from the "still can be saved" category into the "can no longer be saved" category. I don't feel as strongly that this is the case with raddr, but I am gravely concerned re his future participation in our community. He is one of our best posters of all time, and most of his best work is on the SWR matter. I very, very much do not want to lose him. That said, I see the same dynamic that earlier played out re intercst now being played out re raddr. A good contributor engages in deception because of some silly personal concern re the consequences of shooting straight, and ultimately finds himself on a path so dark that he is no longer able to find his way back to the light. I hope we don't lose raddr, but I am not optimistic on this one at this point.
You put up a post re this comment saying that you assumed that this meant that you are the only poster in our community who never had a chance of being "saved." That is of course not the message I intended to convey. I would rank you as the third most abusive poster in the history of our community. I think that you still can be "saved," Ataloss.
You have put up a larger number of abusive posts than Raddr. But I feel that your posting has not done as much damage as his. He has greater responsibilities for two reaasons: (1) he is a site administrator; and (2) he puts forward numbers-based research in many of his posts. I don't feel terribly optimistic re your posting future, Ataloss. But I am not quite so gravely concerned re your future as I am re raddr's. I do indeed believe that you can be "saved" and I very much hope that some responsible community members get about the business of taking the steps needed to see that this ends for you (and for the community as a whole) in a good way.
The ones who feel that the must defend intercst do not bother me.
The primary theme of this thread is "What Makes hocus Tick?" My differences with you re this issue probably tell the story in more dramatic colors than anything else. I couldn't possibly disagree with you more than I disagree with you on this one, JWR1945.
My sense is that the reason you come at this one from a different direction than I do is that your focus is on substance. You are the best poster we have on the substance of the SWR matter, and I greatly appreciate your efforts in that regard. I think you are wrong to place the emphasis you do on substance, however. As important as the substance questions are, I see the process questions as more important, and it is in the area of process that the view expressed by other community members re intercst cause us great harm.
To the extent that people say "Oh, I think that the REHP study is a good study," I see little harm being done. The comment is a wrong-headed one, but it's a harmless one. So long as we can have civil discussions re the study, those interested in learning the realities will come to learn them over time. Those not interested in learning will not learn, and that's their business. So this is no biggie. I am also sure that this is what you were referring to with your comment.
It's not the right way to think about the intercst question, in my view. The name "intercst" has come to mean something new n our community over the course of the past 33 months. It used to be that the name "intercst" brought up thoughts of early retirement and SWR studies and other positive good stuff. Not today. Today, the name "intercst" brings up thoughts of abusive posting, selfishness, destruction of board communties, deception, death threats, all sorts of ugliness. No one can call to mind the name "intercst" and not have thoughts of those sorts of things come to mind.
That sort of thing should never be defended. To defend that sort of thing is to say that you do not care about the future of our community. People in the outside world hate that stuff with a passion. The Number One reason why many do not participate on boards is because they have heard stories of intercst-type posters and they want no part of any business in which such individuals play a role. To say "Yes!" to intercst-type posting practices is to say "No!" to civil and reasoned discussions of how to wn financial freedom early in life.
So I am very concerned when I hear people defending intercst. What people are communicating when they defend him is that it is OK for community members to behave in the manner in which he has behaved when they are big-shot board founders. I say no. The community works as a learning resource not because of the big shots but because of the little shots that provide the diversity of viewpoints we need to have stimulating discussions. We need little shots in our community. Intercst hates little shots. He smears them all the time because he finds them even easier to destroy than big shots. He makes a sport of it. I oppose that stuff. I think it is ugly, I think it is beneath us, and I think it does us great harm. I most emphatically OPPOSE the intercst approach to management of board discussions.
Anyone who really wants to know what makes hocus tick should take a look at the "Learning Together" link at the bottom right-hand corner of each page of the Motley Fool boards. It was that link that attracted me to the Motley Fool boards in the first place, that caused me to decide to introduce the world to the Passion Saving concept via the Motley Fool site rather than somewhere else. Those rules are the finest statement of how boards should be run that I have ever read.
The "Learning Together" statement does not just say that intercst-type posting practices are a bad thing. It spells out why they are a bad thing, it explains why they are so destructice of board communities. And the statement specifies penalties that are to apply when those tactics are employed on Motley Fool boards. It says that intercst-type posters "WILL NOT BE TOLERATED." They don't mention intercst by name. But they describe a number of the tactics that he frequently employs to shut down constructive discussions and then make a strong statement as to the views of Motley Fool management re these sorts of practices.
Those rules are obviously not being enforced in a reasonable way by the current board administrators. I believe that we will be able to use the story of how intercst has destroyed the Motley Fool board as a case study to persuade the owners of Motley Fool either to compel better enforcement from the current site administrators or to have the current site administrators replaced.
I believe that the "Learning Together" statement was written largely by Tom Gardner. The "I Love the Messiness of It" thread at this board quotes some langauge from a post by Gardner in which he expresses some views very much in line with the views expressed in the "Learning Together" statement. Presuming that I am right about Gardner having played a role in writing the "Learning Together" statement, I believe that we will be able to persuade him to use his influence (which is obviously considerable) to have intercst removed from the Motley Fool board. I think that once intercst is removed, the other DCMs will permit reasoned discussions. This is one of the reasons why I am far more optimistic re all this than a good number of others appear to be.
My point here is that it is NOT a good idea for people to defend intercst. If people want to defend the intercst study, that's fine. The study itself is a good piece or work. I have recommended it to aspiring early retirees before and will do so again (noting that it gets the SWR number wrong, of course). But to defend intercst as a poster is to express disdain for the core project to which our boards are directed. There were over 100 fine people who built the Motley Fool board into the most thought-provoking board on the face of Planet Internet. They did not do that to make it intercst's personal play toy. They did it to help middle-class workers have a means of sharing ideas on how to win financial freedom early in life. I think it is fair to say that intercst will never permit the board to serve that purpose so long as he retains posting privielges. So an expression of support for intercst is an expression of disdain for the work and hopes of the true pioneers of our movement.
"Intercst" is a code word in our community today. It is a code word for Disruption. I vote "No!" on the intercst question.
The primary theme of this thread is "What Makes hocus Tick?" My differences with you re this issue probably tell the story in more dramatic colors than anything else. I couldn't possibly disagree with you more than I disagree with you on this one, JWR1945.
My sense is that the reason you come at this one from a different direction than I do is that your focus is on substance. You are the best poster we have on the substance of the SWR matter, and I greatly appreciate your efforts in that regard. I think you are wrong to place the emphasis you do on substance, however. As important as the substance questions are, I see the process questions as more important, and it is in the area of process that the view expressed by other community members re intercst cause us great harm.
To the extent that people say "Oh, I think that the REHP study is a good study," I see little harm being done. The comment is a wrong-headed one, but it's a harmless one. So long as we can have civil discussions re the study, those interested in learning the realities will come to learn them over time. Those not interested in learning will not learn, and that's their business. So this is no biggie. I am also sure that this is what you were referring to with your comment.
It's not the right way to think about the intercst question, in my view. The name "intercst" has come to mean something new n our community over the course of the past 33 months. It used to be that the name "intercst" brought up thoughts of early retirement and SWR studies and other positive good stuff. Not today. Today, the name "intercst" brings up thoughts of abusive posting, selfishness, destruction of board communties, deception, death threats, all sorts of ugliness. No one can call to mind the name "intercst" and not have thoughts of those sorts of things come to mind.
That sort of thing should never be defended. To defend that sort of thing is to say that you do not care about the future of our community. People in the outside world hate that stuff with a passion. The Number One reason why many do not participate on boards is because they have heard stories of intercst-type posters and they want no part of any business in which such individuals play a role. To say "Yes!" to intercst-type posting practices is to say "No!" to civil and reasoned discussions of how to wn financial freedom early in life.
So I am very concerned when I hear people defending intercst. What people are communicating when they defend him is that it is OK for community members to behave in the manner in which he has behaved when they are big-shot board founders. I say no. The community works as a learning resource not because of the big shots but because of the little shots that provide the diversity of viewpoints we need to have stimulating discussions. We need little shots in our community. Intercst hates little shots. He smears them all the time because he finds them even easier to destroy than big shots. He makes a sport of it. I oppose that stuff. I think it is ugly, I think it is beneath us, and I think it does us great harm. I most emphatically OPPOSE the intercst approach to management of board discussions.
Anyone who really wants to know what makes hocus tick should take a look at the "Learning Together" link at the bottom right-hand corner of each page of the Motley Fool boards. It was that link that attracted me to the Motley Fool boards in the first place, that caused me to decide to introduce the world to the Passion Saving concept via the Motley Fool site rather than somewhere else. Those rules are the finest statement of how boards should be run that I have ever read.
The "Learning Together" statement does not just say that intercst-type posting practices are a bad thing. It spells out why they are a bad thing, it explains why they are so destructice of board communities. And the statement specifies penalties that are to apply when those tactics are employed on Motley Fool boards. It says that intercst-type posters "WILL NOT BE TOLERATED." They don't mention intercst by name. But they describe a number of the tactics that he frequently employs to shut down constructive discussions and then make a strong statement as to the views of Motley Fool management re these sorts of practices.
Those rules are obviously not being enforced in a reasonable way by the current board administrators. I believe that we will be able to use the story of how intercst has destroyed the Motley Fool board as a case study to persuade the owners of Motley Fool either to compel better enforcement from the current site administrators or to have the current site administrators replaced.
I believe that the "Learning Together" statement was written largely by Tom Gardner. The "I Love the Messiness of It" thread at this board quotes some langauge from a post by Gardner in which he expresses some views very much in line with the views expressed in the "Learning Together" statement. Presuming that I am right about Gardner having played a role in writing the "Learning Together" statement, I believe that we will be able to persuade him to use his influence (which is obviously considerable) to have intercst removed from the Motley Fool board. I think that once intercst is removed, the other DCMs will permit reasoned discussions. This is one of the reasons why I am far more optimistic re all this than a good number of others appear to be.
My point here is that it is NOT a good idea for people to defend intercst. If people want to defend the intercst study, that's fine. The study itself is a good piece or work. I have recommended it to aspiring early retirees before and will do so again (noting that it gets the SWR number wrong, of course). But to defend intercst as a poster is to express disdain for the core project to which our boards are directed. There were over 100 fine people who built the Motley Fool board into the most thought-provoking board on the face of Planet Internet. They did not do that to make it intercst's personal play toy. They did it to help middle-class workers have a means of sharing ideas on how to win financial freedom early in life. I think it is fair to say that intercst will never permit the board to serve that purpose so long as he retains posting privielges. So an expression of support for intercst is an expression of disdain for the work and hopes of the true pioneers of our movement.
"Intercst" is a code word in our community today. It is a code word for Disruption. I vote "No!" on the intercst question.
Raddr and Ataloss! You can still be saved!! Head for the light, head for the light! (believe this means that lights are out for Intercst? - or did I miss a few hundred paragraphs as I skimmed the above?).
Hocus; you crack me up!
Cheers!
(believe this means that lights are out for Intercst? - or did I miss a few hundred paragraphs as I skimmed the above?).Hocus; you crack me up!
Cheers!
Normal; to put on clothes bought for work, go to work in car bought to get to work needed to pay for the clothes, the car and the home left empty all day in order to afford to live in it...
I had read that post and did not really feel like I had much to contribute since I never worked for mega-corp America. But I did just now post a little blerb about my past work experience that made me realize I didn't want any part of it. Different strokes for different folks!
and remember, try to be more concise
Beachbumz
and remember, try to be more concise
Beachbumz
hocus2004 wrote:Here's a link to a post that I put to the Early Retirement Forum today that has nothing to do with SWRs, Beachbumz.
http://early-retirement.org/cgi-bin/yab ... 1109424693
If you added a non-disruptive post to that thread, it might do a little to get the ball rolling in the direction you would like to see it headed.
Life is Good.
Intercst is not the only person who has deliberately crossed this particular thick bold line.Hocus's quote from Bernstein defines one of those thick bold lines. I have seen other distortions of quotes from Bernstein as well, twisting Bernstein's words into nonsense.Usually, there is a gray area, an ambiguity, where honest people can disagree. But every now and then, there really is a thick bold line. Deception is deception, not a gray area, and it is clearly so.
There are many thick bold lines. It bothers me greatly that raddr has crossed this particular thick bold line.
I believe that most people who defend intercst do not realize that they are endorsing his destructive behavior.... It's not the right way to think about the intercst question, in my view. The name "intercst" has come to mean something new in our community over the course of the past 33 months. It used to be that the name "intercst" brought up thoughts of early retirement and SWR studies and other positive good stuff. Not today. Today, the name "intercst" brings up thoughts of abusive posting, selfishness, destruction of board communities, deception, death threats, all sorts of ugliness. No one can call to mind the name "intercst" and not have thoughts of those sorts of things come to mind.The ones who feel that the must defend intercst do not bother me.
They have not paid attention. They have not looked very deeply into the matter. They have not thought things through. They think that ignoring the problem will make things better. This is incredibly stupid, but it is what they think.
People have a right to be stupid. They do not have a right to cause damage.
All who have engaged in abusive posting, selfishness, destruction of board communities, deception, death threats, all sorts of ugliness have crossed thick bold lines. IMHO, these are different thick bold lines. Many have crossed these lines.
Any community that tolerates such practices is dying.
Have fun.
John R.
P.S. Pay attention, Dory36.
As a matter of explanation, between unclemick's post and the post by Charles, all of the posts were meant to disrupt, to keep people away from the thread.If you added a non-disruptive post to that thread, it might do a little to get the ball rolling in the direction you would like to see it headed.
Have fun.
John R.
P.S. One's rank depends upon his total number of posts.
See ElSupremo's sticky post on the NFB board for details: Member Rankings dated Thursday, Nov 28, 2002.beachbumz wrote:BTW, what's a man gotta do to get a promotion around here?
Beachbumz
http://nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=47
Have fun.
John R.
and remember, try to be more concise
I would very much like to cut back on both the number of posts that I put up re the SWR matter and the number of those posts. We are generally on the same page on this one, Beachbumz.
I was thinking over your post from yesterday when I was at Mass this morning (I should have been concentrating on what the priest was saying, but you know). The one part I didn't agree with is that you said that I need to be more concise if I want people to read my stuff. One complaint that I do not believe that I can in justice put forward is that people don't pay enough attention to my stuff! So there's a sense in which I don't see that as being too much of an issue.
The other side of the story is that I myself often just skip my long posts. Really! I often go back and review old threads to get a sense of where we have been and where we are going. When I do that, I often groan when I see one of the long ones turn up. So I have a sense of where you are coming from with your comments on this matter.
The big issue is the one that JWR1945 refers to in a post a little bit above this one. Do most people get it how disruptive intercst and his supporters have been, and for how long? It's hard for me to imagine that people would not step in if they did realize this. I think that most people want the boards to succeed. So I think most people would step in if they realized the extent of the problem. I do feel a responsibility to do what I can to point it out from time to time so that people know what the deal is.
I have some hopes that some others are reaching the point where they are going to be getting a little more involved. There are a few little signs of that. To the extent that happens, it takes some of the pressure off me. And others tend to do it in a lot fewer words. So perhaps this thing is going to be smoothing out a bit for all of us in days to come.
I would very much like to cut back on both the number of posts that I put up re the SWR matter and the number of those posts. We are generally on the same page on this one, Beachbumz.
I was thinking over your post from yesterday when I was at Mass this morning (I should have been concentrating on what the priest was saying, but you know). The one part I didn't agree with is that you said that I need to be more concise if I want people to read my stuff. One complaint that I do not believe that I can in justice put forward is that people don't pay enough attention to my stuff! So there's a sense in which I don't see that as being too much of an issue.
The other side of the story is that I myself often just skip my long posts. Really! I often go back and review old threads to get a sense of where we have been and where we are going. When I do that, I often groan when I see one of the long ones turn up. So I have a sense of where you are coming from with your comments on this matter.
The big issue is the one that JWR1945 refers to in a post a little bit above this one. Do most people get it how disruptive intercst and his supporters have been, and for how long? It's hard for me to imagine that people would not step in if they did realize this. I think that most people want the boards to succeed. So I think most people would step in if they realized the extent of the problem. I do feel a responsibility to do what I can to point it out from time to time so that people know what the deal is.
I have some hopes that some others are reaching the point where they are going to be getting a little more involved. There are a few little signs of that. To the extent that happens, it takes some of the pressure off me. And others tend to do it in a lot fewer words. So perhaps this thing is going to be smoothing out a bit for all of us in days to come.
Thanks JWR! I don't think I'll ever be a legend, but being a cadet surrounded by all this brass is starting to get to me.
Beachbumz
Beachbumz
JWR1945 wrote:See ElSupremo's sticky post on the NFB board for details: Member Rankings dated Thursday, Nov 28, 2002.beachbumz wrote:BTW, what's a man gotta do to get a promotion around here?
Beachbumz
http://nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=47
Have fun.
John R.
Life is Good.
My apologies. I should have said, if you want ME to read your posts, you should be more concise; although, I have seen similar comments from others about the same. You continue writing them long and I'll continue not reading them.hocus2004 wrote:and remember, try to be more concise
I was thinking over your post from yesterday when I was at Mass this morning (I should have been concentrating on what the priest was saying, but you know). The one part I didn't agree with is that you said that I need to be more concise if I want people to read my stuff.
Beachbumz
P.S. No, you should not be thinking about my post at Mass!
Life is Good.
-
ElSupremo
- Admin Board Member
- Posts: 343
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 12:53 pm
- Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Greetings hocus 
You spoke of a study published on a web site on the internet. This would be on good example of using a persons name. I would think there is a difference between a single user requesting their name not be used and referencing a study done by someone in the public domain. There is a line you could draw there. I'm sure there are many examples of this that will be in that gray area. I would err on the side of common courtesy if push came to shove though. JMHO of course.How far would you take this, ES?
-
ElSupremo
- Admin Board Member
- Posts: 343
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 12:53 pm
- Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Greetings John
The only explanation is a complete mental meltdown. That is not the same person we knew just a short time ago. All that's left is a vindictive liar who has nothing better to do than attack folks from his little message board. He said he used to be in medicine. Perhaps he can find some help. I hope so.
Boy you can say that again!I had raddr in mind. I did not understand his behavior. I still don't understand his behavior.
The only explanation is a complete mental meltdown. That is not the same person we knew just a short time ago. All that's left is a vindictive liar who has nothing better to do than attack folks from his little message board. He said he used to be in medicine. Perhaps he can find some help. I hope so.-
ElSupremo
- Admin Board Member
- Posts: 343
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 12:53 pm
- Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Greetings John
I honestly think all that makes no difference. Her reasons are her own and I belive her wishes should be respected.In this case, Arrete was just being petty. She has no basis for a real objection. She simply wants to harm Hocus.
We agree to disagree on this one John. Whatever the intentions are, I think a person has a right to request their name not be used. One exception of course is the study hocus brought up. I'm sure there are others. I don't think this is one of those.It is better for Hocus to refuse her request politely than to withdraw mentioning her username. Remember, Hocus mentioned her because what he wrote was germane to his discussion. Failing to mention her would, in fact, harm Hocus and his readers.
-
ElSupremo
- Admin Board Member
- Posts: 343
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 12:53 pm
- Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Interesting. I've been cruising around the various boards lately and I've noticed you have nothing good to say about NFB. As a matter of fact, you seem to slam us every chance you get?Ataloss wrote:ES, I can't believe the hocomania set off by your reasonable suggestion
couldn't have done better myself
It's hard to imagine that my un-banning of one member has caused this vindictive crusade by you and raddr. I've done everything I can to remain friends with you. I've apologized for things I've never done. I've tried to get the "ataloss" I used to know back here and let the water flow under the bridge. For whatever reason I see that's not possible. The great poster and friend I used to know no longer exits. I'm sure raddr had no small part in this and I've already gone on long enough about that. But can't you see him for what he's become? Can't you see how he's manipulated this whole affair? Oh well. 
If you want to do one decent thing for me out of respect for our past friendship, stop trashing this site because you hate one of the posters here. It's not fair to me, to the members here, or to those that might want to join us someday. If there is any good left in you, perhaps you could manage to do at least that. Also, FWIW, I find the fact that you represent yourself here the way you used to, then run off and attack our site on every other board out there totally sickening. What the hell ever happened to you anyway?
Hi ES and Thanks! I guess I'll work my way up through the ranks like the rest of 'em, but now I have a goal!
Beachbumz
Beachbumz
ElSupremo wrote:Greetings beachbumz
I believe that happens at 50 posts.BTW, what's a man gotta do to get a promotion around here?
Life is Good.