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.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
Did King Trump cancel Federal workers pay raise to take attention away from Sen.McCain's Memorial?
It's MJG's "Enough of this meaningless stuff" that is more offensive than the song he posted if you ask me. It is dismissive of basically anyone who doesn't see the world the way he does. Reminded me of a bumper sticker I saw many years ago--"The moral majority is neither." Guess what: You don't get to determine what is meaningful to other people.
I suppose "Different strokes for different folks" might be appropriate here. I certainly was not trying to tell other folks what they should or should not consider meaningful. Sorry if it seemed otherwise; that is never the purpose of my submittals and likely a failure in my writings. Unlike you, I am an amateur in the writing discipline.
I try to inform in a very neutral manner. I never attack someone who disputes my inputs in a personal attack way. I fully recognize that different strokes for different folks always applies
In this instance, I used the term "meaningless" because, in my opinion, the submittals for this topic were diverging from its main theme. That is simply my opinion. Others might have a different opinion and that's always ok from my perspective. Differences in opinion are what make a market and discussion pages work.
I agree completely with your observation that I "don't get to determine what is meaningful to other people". I have enough trouble determining what is meaningful to me! And what is meaningful is dynamic since it changes with circumstance.
You have grossly misextrapolated my intent in that simple phrase. That's my opinion. I'm sure you appreciate the limits and dangers of opinions since you make a living writing books and columns that are full of your opinions on complex matters. More power to you and more power to all of us with divergent opinions.
@MFO Members: OK ! we get it, now its time to close this thread. There to many other subjects like , investing in general, mutual funds or ETFs that come to mind Regards, Ted
@ted .. like,,, it's your opinion man. Actually this thread holds more interest to more members than most of your mostly useless links. And our collective financial future is unfortunately linked to the greedy and short sighted repuglicans, led by you know who. If you don't like it,,,,, don't read it.
What I’d like to say is it’s great to discuss this stuff - especially on a weekend when markets are closed. And it isn’t hard to draw ramifications for investors.
Where I’d caution care is that DT’s critics (I’m one of them) NOT resort to the tactics he often employs (name calling / personal insults / angry rants). What he’s doing is baiting people to respond in kind (similar to an internet troll). That’s a no-win.
Noted NYT columnist, Thomas Friedman, has made the point that television networks should cover everything the Prez says - especially those raucous “rallies”. Let the public hear the man in his pure unadulterated form. (Remember “I’d like to punch him in the face” and “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody ...”?)
Like Friedman, I believe in the end the truth will win out. Just don’t stoop to the same level. That’s what he wants. Play smart.
Per Ted: "OK ! we get it, now its time to close this thread. There to many other subjects like , investing in general, mutual funds or ETFs that come to mind"
@Ted: Good point! Let's talk some more about baseball bats.
If it were in fact "time to close this thread" then members would simply stop commenting here. Kind of like your baseball bat thread. That's the way it works, Ted. I realize that you have trouble with the concept, but your opinion counts for no more, or less, then anyone else here.
@larryB: You said, "your mostly useless links." That's interesting because according to MFO View tracker of my last 40 links you have viewed all but four. Just kidding, but I bet its true.
@ted. I particularly take note of your links to funds that are closing the door (for lack of interest, no doubt) Those always generate a ton of discussion..just kidding.
In this instance, I used the term "meaningless" because, in my opinion, the submittals for this topic were diverging from its main theme.
Huh? The title of this thread was "Did King Trump cancel Federal workers pay raise to take attention away from Sen.McCain's Memorial?" That was the thread's main theme. So if anything, focusing on a tune played at the funeral distracts from the thread's main theme. Now you might not like the subject of this thread in its entirety and want to focus on the glories that are McCain and how sweet and soulful his funeral was to you, but there already was a separate thread for that. If anything, your comments were a distraction from larryb's main subject of how the current president I assume you voted for--although perhaps you didn't?--is doing everything in his power to pivot away from McCain who clearly despised him. In that respect, claiming the other comments are meaningless and this is what we really should be focusing on is also a needless distraction--and an obviously ironic one
You truncated my quote to distort my complete thoughts on the matter. That's an act that is not acceptable in an honest exchange or debate.
I fully stated the following: "..... in my opinion, the submittals for this topic were diverging from its main theme. That is simply my opinion. Others might have a different opinion and that's always ok from my perspective. Differences in opinion are what make a market and discussion pages work."
I would expect better standards from a professional writer. I reiterate here that differences in opinion are always acceptable.
I observe that some MFOers critically focus on single words, on minutia. That's a waste of energy and time.
@MJG Again, how were the submittals to the topic divergent from its main theme and how was your submission itself not divergent when the main theme of this thread was "Did King Trump cancel Federal workers pay raise to take attention away from Sen.McCain's Memorial?" As you expect better standards, I expect better manners from an educated ex-military man than a personal attack on my profession. Now answer the question or insist that you're right and passively aggressively attack other people's ideas and professions as you always do while inserting "Best Wishes" at the end as if that makes a whit of difference. I'm not sure I have ever seen you admit you were wrong and apologize on this board. I don't believe you ever will because insisting you're always right is more important than doing the right thing.
The heroic John McCain is buried and gone. I badly want this extended personal exchange to end. From my perspective it will do so now since this is definitely my last contribution to this unfortunate exchange.
My signature Best Wishes closure is sincere. Regardless of our many differences, and differences that exist between myself and other MFO members, I sincerely hope that all of us prosper from good health, happiness, positive random happenings, and plenty of wealth accumulation.
That you and I often see the world differently is not totally unexpected. At 83 years of age, it is likely that I am roughly twice your age. Notwithstanding that huge factor, we probably still have much in common and much learning to do. I sure do. We learn from mistakes, so I should be a very smart guy by now. Unfortunately, some of that learning wisdom has escaped me. I sometimes repeat my mistakes.
I do wish that the personal attacks would disappear from these exchanges. They are picayune and do not contribute by any measurement standard. I disagree with your unsubstantiated charge that I am a member of the group that initiates this negative action.
My submittals in that unhealthy area are purely defensive. They become aggressive only when attacks become personal and untrue. I welcome comments on whatever investment references I discover and submit for everyones review. My writing style and my thinking on most matters do indeed reflect on my military training. That's just a natural outcome from life experiences.
I apologize to all MFO participants for once again extending this needless and nonproductive exchange. But I'm only half responsible for that. Sorry about my half. I never say do as I do.
I disagree with your unsubstantiated charge that I am a member of the group that initiates this negative action.
My submittals in that unhealthy area are purely defensive. They become aggressive only when attacks become personal and untrue.
Your first words on this thread were "Enough of this meaningless stuff." No one had attacked you in any way, shape or form, yet you were dismissive of other people's thoughts and opinions as "meaningless." That is patronizing and insulting to anyone who thinks differently from you.
@MJG would have us believe that he is "surprised" when someone comments on his typical patronizing style. He specializes in acting surprised and puzzled, as if this is the first time this has been noted. Indeed, he is fond of asserting that his "submittals... are purely defensive."
That's more than a bit disingenuous, as is suggested by a few excerpts from MFO history:
VintageFreak May 9 2018 in Off-Topic: @MJG I'm disappointed by your disappointment, but not surprised. You never fail to patronize.
Old_Joe January 2017 in Fund Discussions Yes, it's a shame that MJG frequently incites our worst... Sometimes his patronizing and condescending remarks are just too hard to ignore. The interesting thing is that after all of these years of this crap he still professes to be "somewhat surprised by the vindictiveness" of our reactions. A real slow learner, that fellow is.
LewisBraham January 2017 in Fund Discussions:@MJG do you realize how patronizing it sounds to tell an adult "I hope you learned something" after attacking their ideas with trumped up research from a dubious source?
cman April 2014 in Fund Discussions:Patronizing statements, back handed compliments, passive aggressive attacks are all good candidates when done carefully so as not to antagonize the jury in the process. May not work against all opponents but works against most. I hope @mjg will oblige by providing further illustrative examples.
[Deleted User] January 2012 in Off-Topic: MJG, I am not anti-science, despite the facile and a bit patronizing attempts to characterize me as such.
In an earlier contribution Old Joe also said: "Exactly. The man has the sensitivity and tact of a parking meter." This attack can not be more personal. It is mean spirited.
It seems that Old Joe is so disturbed by the style in my posts that he does considerable research to document his position. Note that I said style. He does not address the financial content that I reference. I have submitted a huge number of posts over a lengthy timeframe. Observe how few examples he provides over a 6-year time period. He is so motivated that he invested precious time and energy to discover them.
I fail to see any financial aspect or benefit to this ad hominem attack. But it falls into a representative fraction of its author's submittals to this Board.
I often have a mixed reaction to such attacks. On one hand, they are grossly unfair, designed to be hurtful, and should be immediately removed from the Board. If the author continues in his outlandish policy, that author should not be permitted to publish his outrageous and defamitory posts on this Board. Of course, that's a policy decision well beyond my capabilities.
On the other hand, these gratuitous negative comments generate Board interest. Folks love an active debate. From my perspective these are easily addressed and dismissed. They allow the originator of the subject submittal to expand his observations in a manner that reinforces his position. However, they do take time that could be more productively deployed in other areas. Indeed, this is a double-edged sword.
Sorry for my much delayed replied. Some MFO participants submittals demand immediate attention; others less so.
The record is what the record is. The examples that I provided are just a very small sample of similar reactions to MJG's remarks over the years. There are so many similar comments that actually not much of my "precious time and energy" was needed to find them.
Note that the commentary which triggered this exchange was between MJG and another poster. My "parking meter" observation merely buttressed the viewpoint of that poster. MJG is a master of "wounded" reaction and misdirection, and the above comment shows that he certainly hasn't lost his touch.
Comments
Well - “We’ll lean ‘em!”
(Just don’t look my way for example / illustration.)
I suppose "Different strokes for different folks" might be appropriate here. I certainly was not trying to tell other folks what they should or should not consider meaningful. Sorry if it seemed otherwise; that is never the purpose of my submittals and likely a failure in my writings. Unlike you, I am an amateur in the writing discipline.
I try to inform in a very neutral manner. I never attack someone who disputes my inputs in a personal attack way. I fully recognize that different strokes for different folks always applies
In this instance, I used the term "meaningless" because, in my opinion, the submittals for this topic were diverging from its main theme. That is simply my opinion. Others might have a different opinion and that's always ok from my perspective. Differences in opinion are what make a market and discussion pages work.
I agree completely with your observation that I "don't get to determine what is meaningful to other people". I have enough trouble determining what is meaningful to me! And what is meaningful is dynamic since it changes with circumstance.
You have grossly misextrapolated my intent in that simple phrase. That's my opinion. I'm sure you appreciate the limits and dangers of opinions since you make a living writing books and columns that are full of your opinions on complex matters. More power to you and more power to all of us with divergent opinions.
Best Wishes
Regards,
Ted
Where I’d caution care is that DT’s critics (I’m one of them) NOT resort to the tactics he often employs (name calling / personal insults / angry rants). What he’s doing is baiting people to respond in kind (similar to an internet troll). That’s a no-win.
Noted NYT columnist, Thomas Friedman, has made the point that television networks should cover everything the Prez says - especially those raucous “rallies”. Let the public hear the man in his pure unadulterated form. (Remember “I’d like to punch him in the face” and “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody ...”?)
Like Friedman, I believe in the end the truth will win out. Just don’t stoop to the same level. That’s what he wants. Play smart.
@Ted: Good point! Let's talk some more about baseball bats.
If it were in fact "time to close this thread" then members would simply stop commenting here. Kind of like your baseball bat thread. That's the way it works, Ted. I realize that you have trouble with the concept, but your opinion counts for no more, or less, then anyone else here.
You truncated my quote to distort my complete thoughts on the matter. That's an act that is not acceptable in an honest exchange or debate.
I fully stated the following: "..... in my opinion, the submittals for this topic were diverging from its main theme. That is simply my opinion. Others might have a different opinion and that's always ok from my perspective. Differences in opinion are what make a market and discussion pages work."
I would expect better standards from a professional writer. I reiterate here that differences in opinion are always acceptable.
I observe that some MFOers critically focus on single words, on minutia. That's a waste of energy and time.
Best Wishes
The heroic John McCain is buried and gone. I badly want this extended personal exchange to end. From my perspective it will do so now since this is definitely my last contribution to this unfortunate exchange.
My signature Best Wishes closure is sincere. Regardless of our many differences, and differences that exist between myself and other MFO members, I sincerely hope that all of us prosper from good health, happiness, positive random happenings, and plenty of wealth accumulation.
That you and I often see the world differently is not totally unexpected. At 83 years of age, it is likely that I am roughly twice your age. Notwithstanding that huge factor, we probably still have much in common and much learning to do. I sure do. We learn from mistakes, so I should be a very smart guy by now. Unfortunately, some of that learning wisdom has escaped me. I sometimes repeat my mistakes.
I do wish that the personal attacks would disappear from these exchanges. They are picayune and do not contribute by any measurement standard. I disagree with your unsubstantiated charge that I am a member of the group that initiates this negative action.
My submittals in that unhealthy area are purely defensive. They become aggressive only when attacks become personal and untrue. I welcome comments on whatever investment references I discover and submit for everyones review. My writing style and my thinking on most matters do indeed reflect on my military training. That's just a natural outcome from life experiences.
I apologize to all MFO participants for once again extending this needless and nonproductive exchange. But I'm only half responsible for that. Sorry about my half. I never say do as I do.
Best Wishes
That's more than a bit disingenuous, as is suggested by a few excerpts from MFO history:
VintageFreak May 9 2018 in Off-Topic: @MJG I'm disappointed by your disappointment, but not surprised. You never fail to patronize.
Old_Joe January 2017 in Fund Discussions Yes, it's a shame that MJG frequently incites our worst... Sometimes his patronizing and condescending remarks are just too hard to ignore. The interesting thing is that after all of these years of this crap he still professes to be "somewhat surprised by the vindictiveness" of our reactions. A real slow learner, that fellow is.
LewisBraham January 2017 in Fund Discussions: @MJG do you realize how patronizing it sounds to tell an adult "I hope you learned something" after attacking their ideas with trumped up research from a dubious source?
cman April 2014 in Fund Discussions: Patronizing statements, back handed compliments, passive aggressive attacks are all good candidates when done carefully so as not to antagonize the jury in the process. May not work against all opponents but works against most. I hope @mjg will oblige by providing further illustrative examples.
[Deleted User] January 2012 in Off-Topic: MJG, I am not anti-science, despite the facile and a bit patronizing attempts to characterize me as such.
In an earlier contribution Old Joe also said: "Exactly. The man has the sensitivity and tact of a parking meter." This attack can not be more personal. It is mean spirited.
It seems that Old Joe is so disturbed by the style in my posts that he does considerable research to document his position. Note that I said style. He does not address the financial content that I reference. I have submitted a huge number of posts over a lengthy timeframe. Observe how few examples he provides over a 6-year time period. He is so motivated that he invested precious time and energy to discover them.
I fail to see any financial aspect or benefit to this ad hominem attack. But it falls into a representative fraction of its author's submittals to this Board.
I often have a mixed reaction to such attacks. On one hand, they are grossly unfair, designed to be hurtful, and should be immediately removed from the Board. If the author continues in his outlandish policy, that author should not be permitted to publish his outrageous and defamitory posts on this Board. Of course, that's a policy decision well beyond my capabilities.
On the other hand, these gratuitous negative comments generate Board interest. Folks love an active debate. From my perspective these are easily addressed and dismissed. They allow the originator of the subject submittal to expand his observations in a manner that reinforces his position. However, they do take time that could be more productively deployed in other areas. Indeed, this is a double-edged sword.
Sorry for my much delayed replied. Some MFO participants submittals demand immediate attention; others less so.
Best Wishes
Note that the commentary which triggered this exchange was between MJG and another poster. My "parking meter" observation merely buttressed the viewpoint of that poster. MJG is a master of "wounded" reaction and misdirection, and the above comment shows that he certainly hasn't lost his touch.