Mike Piper (author of the Oblivious Investor blog) sent me an e-mail on November 6, 2009, in response to the e-mail described in yesterday’s blog entry. Mike had given me permission to quote the entire texts of earlier e-mails. But in this case he asked that I not quote the entire e-mail. So I will summarize his response and include quotes only when they are needed to provide helpful context or color.
I included more quotes from the e-mail than is my usual practice in cases in which I am paraphrasing rather than quoting an entire e-mail. The subject matter here is delicate and in reporting on Mike’s take re several matters I did not feel comfortable using my words rather than Mike’s in letting people know of the message he communicated. In the event that Mike asks me to modify this report to use more paraphrasing and less of his own words and suggests to me an approach to paraphrasing that does the job that needs to be done here in a reasonably effective way, I will do so. I have not contacted him about this because my strong suspicion is that he would prefer to put the matter behind him to the extent that it is possible for him to do so. My belief is that Mike would prefer that he not be quoted on this matter at all. But I believe that the public policy matter at issue here — the public’s need to learn about the academic research showing that Buy-and-Hold does not work and The Stock Selling Industry’s efforts to keep knowledge of it bottled up for thirty years — is sufficiently important that a report is required. I have made a serious effort to balance the competing interests at play here. It is my belief that Mike will generally agree even though his personal preference is not to be quoted at all re this particular matter.
Mike said that “honestly, I have no idea what you’re talking about” re the threats of physical violence and other intimidation tactics used by Mel Lindauer (co-author of The Bogleheads Guide to Investing) and John Greaney (author of the safe withdrawal rate study posted at the www.RetireEarlyHomePage.com site) and their “defenders” as part of their effort to block honest posting on safe withdrawal rates and other valuation-related topics at the Retire Early and Indexing discussion-board communities and in the personal finance blogosphere. He explained that “I write a blog about investing” and assured me that “no death threat have ever been made on my blog, nor will any be permitted in the future.”
Mike added: “Please, if somebody has been making death threats to you, contact law enforcement authorities.”
He stated that “I refuse to become involved in any of this. Your bringing this stuff up with me makes me terribly uncomfortable. It has nothing to do with me.”
Finally, he said that: “I’m not comfortable continuing correspondence with you or having you comment on my blog. I believe that you mean well. But your involvement apparently brings all sorts of things that I just don’t want anything to do with.”
In explaining why he did not want his entire e-mail quoted, he said that “I do not want to be linked to this topic in any way.”
Two days ago we discussed the fact that Mike hadn’t linked to your blog. I wondered why that had happened. Yesterday, your blog on the email that you had sent to Mike led me to comment “I have now been enlightened.” re the matter of Mike not linking to your blog.
You responded “If you are ever feeling charitable enough to take the effort to put the explanation into words and thereby fill me in, I would be grateful”
I explained that is was “the contents of the email that you sent him,” which probably lead him to his decision. And today we have the proof that it was the contents of your email that lead him to have nothing to do with you.
Why is it, that I was able to work out, that your 2,000 word conspiracy laden diatribe would put off Mike so completely, and yet it seems you are unable to the same?
You need to read up on cognitive dissonance, Evidence. You’re looking for a rational explanation for something that is 100 percent emotional in nature.
It’s the Smear Campaigns that Mike should be repulsed by, not my efforts to bring the smear campaigns to a full and complete stop (which have been ongoing for eight years now!). Mike feels great emotional discomfort in acknowledging the Smear Campaigns because they have been so ugly and because the have been going on for so long and because it has been “his side” that has been leading them from the first day. That makes “his side” look sort of bad, you know?
The key to getting to a better place is acknowledging that we are all on the same side — We all want to learn how to invest more effectively. The problem of the Smear Campaigns is solved by insisting that the Smear Campaigns be brought to a full and complete stop. Pretending that you “cannot understand” what’s wrong with Smear Campaigns doesn’t hack it. That gives the people running the Smear Campaigns just what they want (a shutdown of constructive discussions), which encourages them to put forward more Smear Campaigns in the future. Not good.
We all would like to live in a world in which none of the humans ever engaged in Smear Campaigns. We don’t live in that world. We live in this world. In this world, we all have a responsibility to do something about Smear Campaigns when we see them. That applies whether the people leading the Smear Campaigns happen to be on “our side” or not.
My sincere take.
Rob
An interesting response Rob, nothing to do with the point I raised, but that is not unusual when engaging you in debate.
I asked about your inability to see that your email would repulse Mike. I spotted it as soon as I read it, and documented that in a reply to yesterday’s blog.
You didn’t see it, still don’t see it, and as your reply indicates you don’t even want to address the issue.
This is the roadblock that prevents us moving forward on these issues. Until you gain the ability to examine your own actions and work out why they lead blog and discussion board owners to ban you we will never be able to open up the blogs and boards to the issues that you wish to bring up.
A man can’t do what a man can’t do, Evidence.
A fish has gotta swim, a bird has gotta fly and Rob Bennett has gotta post honestly on what the historical data says re safe withdrawal rates. These are the eternal verities.
Maybe that’s why they call it the Valley of Tears!
Rob
If you equate sending 2,000 word emails about death threats, smear campaigns, goon squads, threats of violence and a Campaign of Terror with posting “honestly on what the historical data says re safe withdrawal rates. ” then that is where the problem lies.
However I believe you have summed up the issue very succinctly when you said “A man can’t do what a man can’t do”.
Posting on blogs and boards in a respectful manner that allows the community to want to keep you around is something you “can’t do”.
I can see three options.
1) Learn how to post respectfully. (I don’t believe you are willing to try this)
2) Give up and try something more productive. (you are a one trick pony, I can’t see this one happening)
3) Continue to go about things in the same catastrophically unproductive way that you have tried for the last eight years. (My sense is that this is the most likely option)
If you equate sending 2,000 word emails about death threats, smear campaigns, goon squads, threats of violence and a Campaign of Terror with posting “honestly on what the historical data says re safe withdrawal rates. ” then that is where the problem lies.
Until the day comes when we all join hands together and agree that something must be done re the Lindauer and Greaney Goons, it’s the same thing, Evidence.
I will continue to post honestly. And, yes, when the Lindauer and Greaney Goons engage in intimidation tactics and deliberate deception, I will ask that responsible members of the community affected come forward and take appropriate steps.
I can do no more and I can do no less.
Rob
Until the day comes when we all join hands together and agree that something must be done re the Lindauer and Greaney Goons, it’s the same thing, Evidence.
Only in your mind Rob.
I will continue to post honestly.
Unfortunately you confuse sending many thousand word rants with posting honestly.
And, yes, when the Lindauer and Greaney Goons engage in intimidation tactics and deliberate deception, I will ask that responsible members of the community affected come forward and take appropriate steps.
The intimidation tactics usually involve asking you questions that you can’t or won’t answer and the deliberate deception involves quoting your own words. The appropriate steps you ask for usually involve banning productive members of the community and giving the catastrophically unproductive members of the community free rein.
I can do no more and I can do no less.
Unfortunately this is true. Most people are willing to learn how to do more. You are not one of those people.