Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
@MJG: I hold you only to the standard which you demand of everyone else. The remainder of your absurd rant speaks for itself, and I need not comment further.
Again you distort the evidence. I rarely post negative comments against MFO members, and I rarely offer negative observations about externally referenced work.
I suspect that if you total your negative submittals directed at my posts, they exceed my overall negative reviews for everything. I don't impose standards on anyone except myself. I never initiate these exchanges with you.
That's probably true due to the growing obsession with (electronic) multi-media. But I don't think it's necessary to apply the "lowest common denominator" to MFO. Ours for the most part appear to be highly educated readers capable of digesting fairly lengthy writings. More to the point is the issue of "conciseness". If you can express an idea in 50-100 words, there's no value in doubling the length. In fact, in doing so you may lose readers. -
"long posts don't resonate with people"
That's highly subjective and open to qualification. But I think the best posters vary their length. Respectful of the time of others, they strive to be brief. When they have something longer to say which they believe to be of importance, they'll likely receive a good audience. Respect works both ways. -
"consider the volume of (writings) and the (number of) people that read them"
Neither raises much concern with me. -
"there are curmudgeons here"
Absolutely - as in all walks of life. -
"people sometimes post because they what to make a point, even if it doesn't relate to yours".
As in real life, discussions here tend to wander. Their focus by the end may be entirely different than at the beginning. That's good if it results in new ideas and issues being explored. A savvy reader will go back and examine all the different topics developed in a thread. I long ago learned that initiating a thread does not instill ownership. Threads have a life of their own.
@OJ, One of the biggest gripes against the TPP is the level of secrecy regarding the deal. Those who have access to it that represent labor and other non-business factions can't criticize it specifically without risking jail time. And then when they do criticize it the Obama administration and the deal's supporters attack them for not being specific about the deal's problems-- a lose-lose situation. Take a gander at this and you'll see what I mean: politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/tpp-elizabeth-warren-labor-118068.html#.Va_SGPkbVM4 Those negotiating the deal are basically saying "trust me" with regard to the deal. Of course, the old joke is: Trust me, that's how they say FU in California.
OJ - You're getting under my skin with those "Best Wishes."
Wishing, to my knowledge, has never resulted in better investment performance. In addition, some of us old curmudgeons prefer the less personal "Have a nice day".
@hank- See, there you go again with being angry and obsessive. Also yet another example of how your posts are way too short. And, again, you don't have no links.
Second-Best Wishes and Have a Nice Day (Hee hee hee...)
@LewisBraham- Being from California, I've used that particular expression myself upon occasion. My full formal version is "trust me, it all depends upon what the meaning of "is" is.
And yes, I completely agree with your observations regarding the unusual secrecy of the TPP negotiations, fail to see the need or reason for that, and am therefore suspicious because of that. Hopefully there will be sufficient transparency when the pact is presented to Congress for ratification. I'm anticipating a major fight at that time, so we should get a better look at the whole thing.
Comments
@MJG: I hold you only to the standard which you demand of everyone else. The remainder of your absurd rant speaks for itself, and I need not comment further.
Again you distort the evidence. I rarely post negative comments against MFO members, and I rarely offer negative observations about externally referenced work.
I suspect that if you total your negative submittals directed at my posts, they exceed my overall negative reviews for everything. I don't impose standards on anyone except myself. I never initiate these exchanges with you.
Best Wishes.
I'll let others be the judge of that.
Indeed, I'm satisfied with that!
Best Wishes.
"attention spans are decreasing"
That's probably true due to the growing obsession with (electronic) multi-media. But I don't think it's necessary to apply the "lowest common denominator" to MFO. Ours for the most part appear to be highly educated readers capable of digesting fairly lengthy writings. More to the point is the issue of "conciseness". If you can express an idea in 50-100 words, there's no value in doubling the length. In fact, in doing so you may lose readers.
-
"long posts don't resonate with people"
That's highly subjective and open to qualification. But I think the best posters vary their length. Respectful of the time of others, they strive to be brief. When they have something longer to say which they believe to be of importance, they'll likely receive a good audience. Respect works both ways.
-
"consider the volume of (writings) and the (number of) people that read them"
Neither raises much concern with me.
-
"there are curmudgeons here"
Absolutely - as in all walks of life.
-
"people sometimes post because they what to make a point, even if it doesn't relate to yours".
As in real life, discussions here tend to wander. Their focus by the end may be entirely different than at the beginning. That's good if it results in new ideas and issues being explored. A savvy reader will go back and examine all the different topics developed in a thread. I long ago learned that initiating a thread does not instill ownership. Threads have a life of their own.
@Hank- Funny... reminds me of those maps of the 1400s with "there be dragons here" noted at various treacherous places.
Best Wishes
an old curmudgeon
@Ted- OK, I'm finished with MJG. Now, what was your problem again?
Those negotiating the deal are basically saying "trust me" with regard to the deal. Of course, the old joke is: Trust me, that's how they say FU in California.
Wishing, to my knowledge, has never resulted in better investment performance.
In addition, some of us old curmudgeons prefer the less personal "Have a nice day".
Thanks
Second-Best Wishes and Have a Nice Day
(Hee hee hee...)
And yes, I completely agree with your observations regarding the unusual secrecy of the TPP negotiations, fail to see the need or reason for that, and am therefore suspicious because of that. Hopefully there will be sufficient transparency when the pact is presented to Congress for ratification. I'm anticipating a major fight at that time, so we should get a better look at the whole thing.