Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to another blog entry at this site:
I’d say once per thread, and on topics related to the thread. There’s no need to repeat yourself. Any assertions should be cited. Keep your responses brief and to the point. And respond politely, and without hyperbole.
Buy-and-Holders repeat themselves endlessly. If I have heard that “timing doesn’t work” once, I have heard it ten-thousand times. If those of us who believe in research-based strategies are going to be effective in pointing out the dangers of Buy-and-Hold, we are going to have to reiterate basic principles many times, just as the Buy-and-Holder repeat their claims over and over and over again. The human mind places confidence in claims that it hears many, many times. When people hear a claim thousands of times, they are inclined to think there must be at least some grain of truth in it.
I won’t keep my responses to the questions of community members brief in cases in which it is clear from the wording of the question that the community member is confused on an important point and needs step-by-step guidance to clear up the confusion. My job is to help people develop a better understanding of how stock investing works. When that can be done in a few words, it makes sense to use a few words. When more words are required, it makes sense to go with more words. My focus is on helping my fellow community members.
Is it “polite” to say that the errors in the Old School SWR studies became public knowledge on the morning of May 13, 2002, and that those studies have not been corrected to this day? That’s a stone cold fact. But the reporting of that fact shows that the Buy-and-Holders are working a huge scam. Is it “polite” to point that out? Again, my aim is to help my fellow community members.
I would prefer not to need to point out that the Buy-and-Holders are working a scam. But until the day comes when the errors in the retirement studies are corrected I am not free to say that the errors in the studies have been corrected. To do that would be to tell a lie in furtherance of the biggest act of financial fraud in U.S. history. That would mean prison time for me following the next price crash. Huh?
Is it hyperbole to say that in the 140 years of U.S. stock market history available to us Buy-and-Hold has not yet ever worked for even a single long-term investor? My name is on peer-reviewed research showing just that. Is it hyperbole in your assessment for me to point out what the peer-reviewed research says?
Is it “to the point” for a Buy-and-Holder to threaten to kill my wife and children if I continue to “cross” him by posting honestly about what the last 33 years of peer-reviewed research in this field says? If I am required to post “to the point” should not Buy-and-Holders be permitted to do the same? How do we handle death threats when it is board “leaders” who post them or endorse them? Should we call out board leaders who fail to keep their posts “to the point” by posting threats of physical violence as part of an effort to intimidate community members who root their posts in the academic research?
These are the friction points, Anonymous.
We don’t accomplish anything by pretending they don’t exist.
That one word sums it all up.
Will honest posting be permitted or will it not?
If it is, I am in.
If it is not, the board is a corrupt enterprise and my job is to warn people of the dangers of being associated with it in any way, shape or form.
I hope that helps a bit.