Sorry. I completely misunderstood.

That was the point another (forgotten who, when, or where) made. A post is not the author. Whereas a post reflects conclusions (actions) made by an author, challenging the post should not be considered an attack on the first author and should not result in a second (challenging) author being attacked. The post is a thought - a concept - that lives like a balloon. Some want to tap that balloon back up. Others want to puncture it. But the bottom line remains. A post that has no credibility is not an attack on the author. An author who takes his posts personally tends to then attack other authors.

Example - stock brokers, on average, underperform the market. That is a fact. That says nothing about lookout123. Somehow and repeatedly, lookout123 takes it personally. I don't know why. lookout123 may be the minority that matches or outperforms the market. That also would be consistent with the statement. Whether he does or does not is irrelevant to the post - that stock brokers, on average, underperform the market.

Clearly that statement - stockbrokers on average underperform - says nothing about nor disparaged lookout123. However, for reasons that totally befuddle me, lookout123 does take it personally.

I don't take it personally. I know that you are a worthless liar. If I took it personally I'd probably run on and on about my personal performance. I simply asked you support your idea - you refuse to do so. Wait, is it still a refusal, if the reason you don't respond is that... YOU CAN'T, because you are liar? Eh, either way. I gave you multiple opportunities to support your claims. You chose to ignore the opportunities to do so. I responded to your claims in detail. You chose to ignore that. You simply waited until you thought people had forgotten to restate your original misrepresentation. I called you a liar. You choose not to refute that. You are a fucking worthless liar. Prove me wrong.

Supporting facts were provided including facts and numbers from a recent The Economist study on this topic. I fail to see where you refuted any of those facts and numbers. Meanwhile, taking investment recommendations from four years ago, UT's mutual fund recommendation outperformed your recommendations. Just another fact.

Demonstated by lookout123 again is the difference between dealing with concepts verses taking things personally - attacking another author. Well last night, maybe he was drinking. Today, a hangover? Jack makes some meanly good stuff.

If that were true I would congratulate UT on choosing better than I did, but see the problem is that I didn't make ANY recommendations at all in the thread you talking about. I didn't even name a specific investment.

You are a liar. You still haven't stepped up to the plate and answered a single question you've been asked. You haven't even bothered to support any of your incorrect ideas.

I find it bizarrely ironic that you have such a heartfelt hatred of GWB when you are so similar. Neither one of you is willing to step up and admit that you might have been wrong. You each made judgements based on the information you had, you were both wrong and have been shown to be wrong by reasonable people, and yet you cannot admit you made a mistake so you just make bigger asses of yourselves. GWB's mental midget status is well known, so what does that say about yours?

BTW that fund has lost 25% of its value in the last two months. I'm happy to be out of it, for whatever reason.

I find it amusing that some here are complaining about 6% interest rates.

In Australia, interest rates are higher. The standard variable rates offered by the major Australian banks is about 9.3% right now.

But, but, you have free health care, and, and, you drive on the other side of the road... and.... Ali has a nice new house near the coast...:blush:

Since there was some interesting banter in the last couple pages, Ifigured I'd put this here instead of creating a new thread.

Ahhh, the transparency of it all. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Sooooo many times I have heard of government decisions along the lines of "Don't do it, it would cause a panic". Inevitably, it either leaks out or they are forced to act later, which guarantees a much worse panic when they do.

The governor refused to fortify Singapore as the Japanese pushed South through Malaya to avoid causing a panic.
The Brit government didn't publicise the threat to industrial cities in the north, to prevent panic, until the Luftwaffe superseded them.
There are plenty of other examples but I won't mention them. I wouldn't want to scare anyone.

Stress test results anyone?

PR campaign anyone?

Can you say Monopoly Money?

skank of America and shittybank did not pass the test, but the government wants them to raise capital privately instead of giving it to them.

On another note, the banks spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying Congress to NOT pass the bill that would have allowed a bankruptcy judge to order refinancing of someone's home who was in foreclosure. Before any of you have a cow, rich people can save any number of extra homes they have, or yacths, farms can be saved, and many other things. Only if you are so unlucky as to own only one home, which you happen to live in, you do not get that same courtesy. And the bill was just recently voted on again. And it didn't pass. Surprise surprise. Why is it we will protect someone's vacation home or thier yacth, but not someone's primary residence?

Get the story here... In a recent radio address on Radio Chicagoland Senator Richard (Dick) Durbin remarked on power the financial services industry still wields at a time when that industry is theoretically under great scrutiny: "The banks — hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created — are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place."

The banking lobby won a significant victory in Congress on May 1, 2009 when 12 Democrats joined a united Republican Caucus to vote down an amendment to President Obama's housing bill. At issue was a measure that would have allowed bankruptcy judges to modify mortgages to help homeowners avoid foreclosure.

The House version of the bill, which provides wide housing assistance and consumer protection measures, passed with the amendment, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently said she does not expect the measure to be included in the final bill since the Senate voted it down.... (there's more) http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05082009/profile.html

This fucking blows. We need another Pecora Hearing, like they had in the 30s during the Great Depression. It will be the only way we can win against the powerful banks. http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04...anscript1.html

About the stress tests... http://voices.washingtonpost.com/hea...ress.html#more

damn those banks for not wanting legislation allowing people who can't afford their homes to keep them. the devils!