NoFeeBoards.com!

No Fees! No Ads! No Spam!

Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search NoFeeBoards.com! Forum Index

We Have Seen the Future of Retire Early Boards,and It Works!
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    NoFeeBoards.com! Forum Index » SWR Research Group
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Norbert Schlenker
* Rookie


Joined: 21 Mar 2005
Posts: 43
Location: The Dry Side of the Wet Coast

PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hocus2004 wrote:
Dory made you moderator and you could not help abusing your position by deleting much of what was written by others.

The deletions that I made were made on Dory36's instructions.

Got documentation for that claim?



_________________
Great minds think alike. Fools seldom differ.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
unclemick
*** Veteran


Joined: 12 Jun 2004
Posts: 231
Location: LA till Katrina, now MO

PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Petey

I meant the post in this thread '--some of the problems I have with the 4% number'. - and why some other things needed consideration.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus2004
Moderator


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Got documentation for that claim?

I'm not going to go public with the e-mail correspondence between Dory36 and me without his permission. If he gives me his permission, I will post it. He has my permission to post our back-and-forth e-mails if he likes.

Dory36 did not identify particular posts for me to delete.. He made very clear, though, that he wanted zero friction on the Alternate Methodology board and that, if he saw any friction whatsoever on the board, he was going to take it down.

We exchanged e-mails early on Friday, prior to when he put up the "What Shall We Do?" thread. In that correspondence, he said that he was not troubled by the posts that I put up on the Data-Based SWR Tool, He said that all the problems were coming from the posts that followed from my posts, posts that came "in the wake" of my posts. That means posts from intercst supporters, right? Is that not a fair reading of this message that he directed to me?

He said that he had received many complaints about the abusive posting at the Conventional Methodology SWR Board. The conventional board is moderated by intercst, not me, right? So whose fault is that? Why has that board not been shut down if there is such great concern re abusive posting?

He said when he announced the formation of the new board that it was "experimental." It was clear from his e-mails to me that the "experiment" was whether discussions of the Data-Based Tool at the new board would be as friction-filled as the discussions of it held at the old board. Again, is that not a fair reading of his message to me? (I understand that you do not have the words in front of you, but that is beyond my control.)

I am the one who made the proposal for the new board. But there was an important change made between the version that I put forward and the version that Dory36 put into effect. I NEVER REQUESTED TO BE NAMED MODERATOR OF THE NEW BOARD. Dory36 said in the "What Shall We Do?" thread that I was questioning basic stuff, like a Methodist raising questions about religious dogma at a meeting of Baptists. So I said "how about if we had a board formed just for discussions of the Data-Based SWR Tool?" Then there would be no questioning of dogma, right? I was trying to address his concern, not to take on board moderator responsbilities. I was trying to make discussion of the Data-Based Tool "acceptable" so that we could stop the railing about the very idea of questioning the analytical valdity of the REHP study.

Within five minutes of the formation of the new board, I got an e-mail from Dory36 explaining how post deletions are made. I had not requested information on this. I am trying to open discussions up, not close them down. I have deleted one post in my entire time as board moderator at the SWR Research group board. I am not a guy who favors shut-downs except in extreme circumstances.

I do believe that there is a great need for a board where community members are free to discuss what William Bernstein and many other smart people believe re SWRs. So when Dory36 made clear that continuation of the new board was conditional on me deleting posts that seemed likely to lead down the road to trouble, I went along with his instructions.

Of the posts that appeared on the new board, about half argued in favor of the Data-Based Tool and about half
argued against it. There were zero deletions made because of the position taken by the poster. In each case, the deletions were because the posts contained argumentative material that seemed to me to possess the potential to cause friction if discussions re the points raised went forward.

There were two posts arguing against the Data-Based Tool that I deleted (I believe that there were two or three copies of each of these two posts taken down) and one that I deleted that was a very minor put-down of a poster who had spoken against the Data-Based Tool. Had the third one contained even a tiny bit of content, I would have left it up, but it was only the one-sentence put-down, and given that I had deleted two from the other side on grounds that they were slightly argumentative, I felt bound by fairness to take that one down as well given that it contained no substance.

I knew nothing about the deletion of the Petey post, which both UncleMick and me believe was not argumentative at all. It is possible that there is a deletion or two that I am not recalling. I did not make copies.

I put up a post when I made these deletions explaining that I was doing so on Dory36's instructions and that I did not want the posters to take offense or to think that I saw something "bad" about their posts. I don't. I prsonally thought that the posts should have been permitted to stand and to be discussed. But I also said that I believed that Dory36's instructions were reasonable, given the circumstances. I said that I hoped that things would soon calm down enough so that such unusual circumstances would no longer apply.

I invited the posters who had posts deleted to post their messages at the Conventional Methodology board since Dory36 had told me that he would take care of stuff posted there and that it need not be my concern. I believe that both of them posted shortened versions of the deleted posts at the Conventional Methodology board.

I do not in principle support the policy that Dory36 asked me to follow. I do think it made some sense in the unusual circumstances we faced. There was no censorship. Any poster who wanted to say anything at all, no matter how abusive, had the Conventional Methodology board available at which to post any message critical of me or the Data-Based Methodlogy that he pleased, and I made clear that I would not even post a response to it.

With Dory36's deletion of the new board after a two-day trial in which not a single disruptive post remained on the board, we have lost something valuable that a good number of community members expressed a desire to participate in just in that very short amount of time. There are many experts with big names who have rejected the assumptions on which the REHP study is based. Communiy members who want to discuss the flaws of the study should be permitted to do so. Those who have tried to do so at the Conventional Methodology board have been threatened with board bannings for doing so. Now they have had the Alternate Methodology board taken away from them too.

There were several posters who said on the :"What Shall We Do?" thread that a banning is not appropriate when aimed at a poster who has never broken a posting rule, but only tried to get a new question on the table. Dory36 has now gone ahead with the banning regardless without even attempting to put forward a reason. He got exactly what he said he wanted--a board where new ideas on SWRs could be discussed without the friction and abusive posting that so many community members have complained of.

Could it be that he got too much of what he wanted, that the complete lack of friction at the Alternate Methodology board, in contrast to the poison that was being spilled almost hourly at the Conventional Methodology board, was a contrast that made the REHP study that has brought the Dory36 site a number of media mentions in earlier days look too weak and too bad? That's my take.

The bottom line is that there are now zero restrictions on abusive posting. That's absolutely fair game. But honest and informed posting on what the historical data actually says re SWRs is banned at all boards except this one, which is still under a boycott being enforced through intimidation posts put forward by intercst supporters. The intercst supporters have zero confidence in their ability to make the case for the REHP study in a debate where reasoned argument pro and con is permitted. And everyone who has been paying attention to the SWR discussions of the past 34 months knows why.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Norbert Schlenker
* Rookie


Joined: 21 Mar 2005
Posts: 43
Location: The Dry Side of the Wet Coast

PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 1:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Quote:
Me: Got documentation for that claim [deletions were made on Dory36's instructions]?

Hocus: Dory36 did not identify particular posts for me to delete.

I.e., you have no documentation. You did it on your own hook.

Quote:
He made very clear, though, that he wanted zero friction on the Alternate Methodology board.

Got documentation for that claim? My sense from examining the aftermath is that he wanted to reduce the endless argument in existing threads and that setting up a separate forum would help. That doesn't give you carte blanche to silence dissent by removing messages. So come up with some documentation.

Quote:
He said that he had received many complaints about the abusive posting at the Conventional Methodology SWR Board. The conventional board is moderated by intercst, not me, right?

I take it you're referring now to intercst's board and not to the SWR forum on Dory's board, which doesn't look moderated at all. If Dory were concerned about something going on elsewhere, I'm puzzled to understand why. Again, I assume that you have documentation to back up this claim re Dory's words.

Quote:
So whose fault is that? Why has that board not been shut down if there is such great concern re abusive posting?

Why would it be shut down? It's intercst's board. A quick look makes it obvious that he's got it in for you but there is no crime in running a discussion board, even if it is apparently mostly devoted to teasing you.

Quote:
There were zero deletions made because of the position taken by the poster. In each case, the deletions were because the posts contained argumentative material that seemed to me to possess the potential to cause friction if discussions re the points raised went forward.

Did you keep copies? It's good practice for moderators to keep copies of items they feel must be deleted, so that their own actions can also be reviewed. Otherwise, they leave themselves open to charges that they are abusing their position.

Quote:
I put up a post when I made these deletions explaining that I was doing so on Dory36's instructions and that I did not want the posters to take offense or to think that I saw something "bad" about their posts.


And shortly thereafter, Dory shuts the forum down, deletes everything, and bans you. It sounds to me like he was pretty mad. It sounds to me like he thought he had been taken advantage of, and that you were now misrepresenting "instructions" to his board members. Of course, I would be happy to see any documentation that indicates otherwise.

Quote:
But honest and informed posting on what the historical data actually says re SWRs is banned at all boards except this one ...

I'll get to that in coming days. Are you saying that if I come here and express a skeptical attitude that my posts won't disappear and that you won't petition El Supremo to ban me?



_________________
Great minds think alike. Fools seldom differ.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JWR1945
***** Legend


Joined: 26 Nov 2002
Posts: 1697
Location: Crestview, Florida

PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Norbert Schlenker wrote:
Me: Got documentation for that claim [deletions were made on Dory36's instructions]?

Hocus: Dory36 did not identify particular posts for me to delete.

I.e., you have no documentation. You did it on your own hook.
...
and so on.
...
He said that he had received many complaints about the abusive posting at the Conventional Methodology SWR Board. The conventional board is moderated by intercst, not me, right?

I take it you're referring now to intercst's board and not to the SWR forum on Dory's board, which doesn't look moderated at all. If Dory were concerned about something going on elsewhere, I'm puzzled to understand why. Again, I assume that you have documentation to back up this claim re Dory's words.
...
Did you keep copies? It's good practice for moderators to keep copies of items they feel must be deleted, so that their own actions can also be reviewed. Otherwise, they leave themselves open to charges that they are abusing their position.
...

I take strong objection to your assertions, Norbert Schlenker. I will vouch personally that hocus has accurately described what happened.

It is unreasonable to demand that hocus have documentation since Dory36 removed everything right away. You can read the lies and misrepresentations even now. You cannot read the truth. You cannot read what was on the Alternative SWR Board.

I remember reading that hocus had been instructed to remove argumentative posts.

If you look carefully at the existing SWR Board at The Early Retirement Forum, you will see that Dory36 has made intercst the moderator.

Have fun, but start reporting the truth!

John R.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Norbert Schlenker
* Rookie


Joined: 21 Mar 2005
Posts: 43
Location: The Dry Side of the Wet Coast

PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 2:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I will vouch personally that hocus has accurately described what happened.


Do you have documentation?

Quote:
It is unreasonable to demand that hocus have documentation ...

hocus claims that Dory told him to delete posts. As they're not in the same room, I assume that it would be in the form of an email. hocus does have documentation.

As for the items hocus deleted while moderator, it really is good practice to keep copies just in case a review is necessary. Whether Dory subsequently deleted the entire record is irrelevant to hocus deleting messages on a whim beforehand.

Quote:
I remember reading that hocus had been instructed to remove argumentative posts.

So, in fact, you have no documentation either. Let me give you the benefit of the doubt. Who wrote what you read about hocus' instructions?

Quote:
If you look carefully at the existing SWR Board at The Early Retirement Forum, you will see that Dory36 has made intercst the moderator.

When I look at the board, there's a little notation under the SWR forum that says Moderator: N/A. Is N/A an alias for intercst?



_________________
Great minds think alike. Fools seldom differ.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus2004
Moderator


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 2:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Are you saying that if I come here and express a skeptical attitude that my posts won't disappear and that you won't petition El Supremo to ban me?

My understanding is that ES has a "no banning" policy. So I don't think you have much to worry about on that score.

You have had your say on this issue. It is good that you have put forward the other point of view re the topic of this thread, since otherwise it would have been dominated by the posts put forward by me, Petey, and JWR1945. So I think your posts here added to the discussion, and they will of course stand.

If you put forward posts on other topics that appear aimed at expressing at least minimally reasonable viewpoints either pro or con the Data-Based SWR Tool, I will of course let those stand too.

That said, I am not impressed by your first few posts here. My impression is that you are an intercst supporter and that you have come here to cause trouble, not to reason your way to a better understanding of what the historical data says re SWRs. It's my job to protect the learning resource that the community has created here. If I see more of the same blind pro-intercst attitude from you in posts on other topics, there's a good chance that I will delete future posts of yours.

This board was set up to provide a place for people seeking to escape intercst posting tactics a refuge from the nonsense. I encourage the expression of a variety of viewpoints on SWRs. But the intercst SWR views are not reasonable ones and the intercst posting tactics are highly abusive ones. So there is a limit to how far I will go in permitting blind support for the intercst SWR views or the posting tactics favored by intercst and his supporters at this board.

If you want to engage in a reasoned dialogue for a constructive purpose, you are warmly welcomed to join us. If nonsense gibberish is your game, there are a number of other Retire Early boards available for that sort of thing. That ain't at all wnat this particular spot of internet real estate is about.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Norbert Schlenker
* Rookie


Joined: 21 Mar 2005
Posts: 43
Location: The Dry Side of the Wet Coast

PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 2:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Are you going to answer the questions I asked above? I understand your reluctance to disclose private correspondence so I will excuse that for the moment. I assume also that you will be forthcoming should Dory give his permission to publish. But how about the simple question re moderation of the conventional SWR forum on Dory's board?

Am I misinterpreting the data Moderator: N/A?

Quote:
I am not impressed by your first few posts here. My impression is that you are an intercst supporter and that you have come here to cause trouble, not to reason your way to a better understanding of what the historical data says re SWRs.

You are perfectly entitled to be suspicious given your treatment elsewhere. Let's see where things go.

Quote:
If I see more of the same blind pro-intercst attitude from you in posts on other topics, there's a good chance that I will delete future posts of yours.

What blind pro-intercst attitude?



_________________
Great minds think alike. Fools seldom differ.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JWR1945
***** Legend


Joined: 26 Nov 2002
Posts: 1697
Location: Crestview, Florida

PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 2:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Norbert Schlenker wrote:
Quote:
If you look carefully at the existing SWR Board at The Early Retirement Forum, you will see that Dory36 has made intercst the moderator.

When I look at the board, there's a little notation under the SWR forum that says Moderator: N/A. Is N/A an alias for intercst?

I just checked. Your report is accurate. Dory36 has removed all of the moderators from all of the boards at the Early Retirement Forum.

This is a very recent change.

Have fun.

John R.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus2004
Moderator


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 12:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is a very recent change.

It's a long overdue change. Thanks for bringing that one to our attention, Norman Schlenker.

I understand your reluctance to disclose private correspondence so I will excuse that for the moment.

There's nothing to excuse. It would be unethical for me to publish Dory36's e-mail correspondence without his permission.

The sort of nonsense attitude evident in this comment of yours is typical of posts put up in defense of intercst. The problem is that there is no reasonable defense that can be put forward either for the intercst SWR claims or for the posting tactics intercst has employed to block discussion of the errors he made in the REHP study.

Either the attitude goes or your posts begin to go, Norbert.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus2004
Moderator


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 5:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I take it back, Norbert.

I checked your profile and figured out that you are the guy who posts as "NFS" over at the Early Retirement Forum. Your recent posts over there are serious community-building stuff. You have the balls to talk a little bit of truth to power. We need a whole bunch more of that sort of thing in our little community. In the right circumstances, a wee bit of "rudeness" is just the right stuff. I heartily approve!

You ask whatever questiions you want, and JWR1945 and I will send some answers in your direction. Unlike Dory36, neither one of us is ever going to try to feed you a line about how we "don't think there is any good purpose" served in answering a few questions about a matter than has been the community's dominant concern for 34 months running now and over which the fate of thousands of early retirements are at stake. Nor are we going to tell you to shove off and add that "if amyone feels I was arbitrary, capricious, and/or heavy handed, well, sorry about that." I think that it is fair to interpret those words of Dory36 as a big laughing-out-loud "F-You!" to any community member concerned with the integrity of our future discussions of the SWR and intercst matters.

Operators are standing nearby to help you with your questions, my new friend.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    NoFeeBoards.com! Forum Index » SWR Research Group All times are GMT - 9 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
Designed for Trushkin.net | Styles Database