Set forth below is the text of a comment that I recently posted to the discussion thread for another blog entry at this site:
“I speak for people re the process issue but never re the substance issue.”
Wrong, Sluggo. You speak for many peopl, with Robert Shillerbeing the most commonly used person. For example, Shiller says not to use his work for timing, but you say he means short term and not long term. You have also said he wants to say many other thangs, but pulls his punches. What about Wade? You make many comments about what you say he really means, but then say he is too scared to make those comments.
Wade said the same thing over and over and over and over again. Then he was threatened and he took it all back, Gee, I wonder what was going on there.
All of Shiller’s work shows why long-term timing (price discipline) is required. And of course he advocated it himself in the paper he wrote in 1996 saying that those going with high stock allocations would regret it within 10 years. Yes, he pulled back from making those sorts of predictions when the 1996 prediction did not pan out. And I of course have never said that Shiller continues to make those predictions. But the Nobel-prize-winning research that shows that long-term timing always works and is always required is still out there. So why shouldn’t I tell people that and give Shiller credit for being the one who prepared the research?
If I did not say that long-term timing always works and is always required, Wade would never have contacted me to ask if I would be willing to work with him on research showing that Valuation-Informed Indexing is superior to Buy-and-Hold. Where would we be then? I think it would be fair to describe that research as the most important research published in this field in 30 years. So I sure wouldn’t like us to be without it. And you Goons obviously think it is pretty darn important too or else you never would have threatened Wade. Please give me a freakin’ break.
The big mistake was made in 1981. Bogle should have come out within days of the publication of Shiller’s “revolutionary” (his word) research showing that Buy-and-Hold can never work in the long term and told all the people who follow his advice that there was now serious research casting doubt on the Buy-and-Hold strategy. If he still believed in Buy-and-Hold, he of course could have said that too. But he certainly should have let people know that the research cast doubt on the merit of the Buy-and-Hold strategy. Then we never would have experienced any of these problems.
Now we have a huge mess on our hands because the big problem for the Buy-and-Holders is not the mistake they made in thinking that it is not necessary to practice price discipline when buying stocks but the 37-year cover-up. I didn’t cause that cover-up, Anonymous. I have been working hard to bring it to a full and complete stop for 16 years now. Once the cover-up is brought to a full and complete stop, we all live better lives from that point forward. That’s the path that gets my vote.
No one should be afraid to post honestly at any board or at any blog. My sincere take.
My best wishes to you. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
Non-Punch-Pulling, Non-Scared (Kinda, Sorta) Rob (AKA Sluggo)
“Wade said the same thing over and over and over and over again. Then he was threatened and he took it all back. Gee, I wonder what was going on there.”
No need to wonder. It’s obvious. Just one small but typical example is in this same comment:
“the 1996 prediction did not pan out”
“long-term timing always works”
You fail to the contradiction there, which proves that you are irrational and impossible to reason with.
Wade disowned you in 2012, and your reaction was an epic psychotic break from which you have never recovered. I could post the link but it’s ancient history. It’s sad that you won’t ever get past it.
I agree that Shiller’s 1996 prediction did not pan out. I do not agree that that shows that long-term timing does not always work.
If prices fall over the next year or two or three by 75 percent (that would take us to a P/E10 of 8 — there has never once in U.S. history been a bull/bear cycle that did not get us to a P/E10 of 8 or lower before it fully resolved and a new cycle was able to begin), those who followed Shiller’s 1996 advice to lower their stock allocations will be FAR ahead of those who followed Buy-and-Hold strategies instead. Presuming that stocks continue to perform in the future at least somewhat as they always have in the past. this will be one more case in which exercising price discipline when buying stocks (by engaging in long-term timing) will have paid off big time, even though the precise prediction advanced by Shiller (that prices would drop hard within 10 years) did not in fact pan out.
Remember when Wade said re long-term market timing that “It hardly matters how we do it” because the evidence that it works in every possible circumstance is so strong? That’s what he was getting at. Long-term timing is price discipline. How could there ever be a circumstance in which exercising price discipline would not work? Shiller once said that the conclusion that the Buy-and-Holders jumped to, that because short-term timing does not work, the market price is the product of rational choices and reflects reality, is one of the most remarkable mistakes in the history of economics. I would add that it is in the process of causing more human misery than any earlier mistake ever made in the history of personal finance.
It doesn’t matter too much WHEN the pretend gains caused by irrational exuberance disappear into the wind. What matters is that they always do. If you know that those gains are going to be disappearing in coming days, you should not be counting them as part of your retirement portfolio. That’s what the Buy-and-Holders do. The Buy-and-Holders count those pretend gains as real (because they believe that those gains are the product of economic developments, not irrational exuberance).
That’s the core difference between Buy-and-Holders and Valuation-Informed Indexers. We have different views as to where excess price gains come from. If you believe that big price gains are the product of economic developments, then they signal something very positive — a growing economy. But if you believe that big price gains are the product of irrational exuberance, then they signal something very negative — a market that has become insanely emotional. How you feel about that core question is going to determine how you feel about every other question that comes up in stock investing. If you think that the market has gone insanely emotional, you are not going to feel comfortable putting too much of your money in it. If you think that high prices just signal a super strong economy, you are going to celebrate the big gains because you will want to participate in the benefits of the super strong economy to the greatest extent possible.
Wade didn’t disown me. The 16 months in which we were working together were the happiest and most exciting months of his life and he properly remains immensely proud of the research paper that we co-authored. He stopped promoting the paper and stopped working with me to get the word out about the realities of stock investing to millions of middle-class investors because he saw what you Goons do to people who post honestly re these matters and he saw how Bogle failed to act when he saw what was going on and he concluded that he needed to pull back to keep his career from being destroyed. Those who want to know Wade’s sincere views re what works in stock investing can read the items under the “Wade Pfau” category at this blog and learn some amazing stuff. Wade will be flipping back to work with the good guys in the days following the next price crash and I believe that he will be awarded a Nobel prize for his amazing work at that time. We’ll see.
Buy-and-Hold was a mistake. Now that the mistake has been covered up for 37 years through insanely abusive behavior, I think it would be fair to characterize it as a scam. It’s a scam that is killing us as a nation. I OPPOSE the scam. I am proud to be able to say that I have been publicly OPPOSING it for 16 years now. Who else can say that?
It will be interesting to see how things play out.
I naturally wish you all the best that this life has to offer a person, scam promotion or no scam promotion. My personal belief is that, in the days following the crash, when you have seen the effects of Buy-and-Hold on your own retirement hopes, you will flip too and we will be working together as friends to get the word out about the exciting last 37 years of peer-reviewed research in this field to every investor alive on the planet. I sure hope it turns out that way, in any event.
My best and warmest wishes to you, Goon pal.
Psychotically Broken Rob
“Wade didn’t disown me.”
He cut off all contact with you six years ago. That’s the definition of being disowned. Now, would you like to hear the definition of “denial”?
He cut off contact with me. That’s so. But the things we learned together are things that will shape the remaining years of his life in much the same way that they will shape the remaining years of my life. The circumstances are strange. But the bond between us can never be broken. You don’t forget that kind of learning experience. It changes you. And you can never change back, even if circumstances force you to pretend that you have.
The test will be what Wade says about me in the days following the next price crash, Anonymous. I have a funny feeling that I know how that one is going to go. We’ll see.
I think it is you Goons who are in denial. Thousands of people have looked at the Greaney retirement study in the 16 years since I put forward my famous post pointing out the error in it. Not once has been able to identify a valuation adjustment in it. I wonder why.
My best wishes.
Disowned and In Denial Rob
“I think it is you Goons who are in denial.”
Because you’re irrational. So once again, we circle back to the beginning. A merry-go-round you refuse to ever step off.
One side or the other is deeply irrational, I think that at least that much is more than fair to say.
It all comes down to how one elects to deal with the emotionalism of the investing experience. The Buy-and-Holders pretend that it doesn’t exist. If there is never a mention of investor emotion, then investor emotion does not matter, right?
The Valuation-Informed Indexers acknowledge the emotionalism of the investing experience and make an effort to come to terms with it. The hope is that by coming to terms with investor emotionalism we can reduce its negative impact.
I naturally wish you the best of luck with your choices, even though my personal view is that your choices are not the best that could be made.
Please take good care, old friend.
Merry-Go-Rounder Rob
And someday, Jack and Wade will come crying to you, saying that they have been wrong about you all along and will plead to work with you to solve the economic crisis. They will also be the first to help you get the $500 million you so richly deserve. You will be featured on the front page of the New York Times, books will be written about you and every financial conference will want you as the keynote speaker. Meanwhile, all the goons will be headed to prison, with John Greaney and Mel Lindauer facing the longest prison terms for their part in the massive cover up, death threats, etc…………………………….and then you will wake up from your dream and return to reality.
And Bogle will get credit for all of his many genuine contributions because he really is a giant in this field. And Wade will be awarded the Nobel prize that he so richly deserves. And we will pull out of the Buy-and-Hold Crisis and enter a period of prolonged economic growth. And millions of middle-class people will learn how to invest in way that provides far higher returns at greatly reduced risk. And all of our Wall Street Con Men friends will be able to make more money than ever before because people will feel safer investing in stocks once the risk of stock investing has been greatly diminished. And all of our blogger friends will be having a blast exploring all of the hundreds of exciting debate that were taken off the table during the Buy-and-Hold years but which finally can be discussed freely. And the number of people who can retire early will be greatly expanded.
Please tell me the downside, Anonymous.
Of all the things that Bogle got right, the most important one was the one where he said that investors should look to the peer-reviewed research for guidance on how to invest in stocks. He should have just stuck with that.
My sincere take.
And my best wishes to you.
Dream-Weaver Rob
“Please tell me the downside, Anonymous.”
We can’t all live in Rob’s fantasyland. We have to live in reality.
My fantasyland comes with a Nobel prize.
Yours comes with death threats and demands for unjustified board bannings and thousands of acts of defamation and threats to get academic researchers fired from their jobs.
Reason vs. Emotion.
My best.
Fantasyland Rob
“My fantasyland comes with a Nobel prize.
Yours comes with death threats” etc etc.
No, those are both your fantasies. That’s really the heart of the problem, isn’t it? Everything you write is fantasy. You used to toss in a bit of reality every once in a while. Back when people actually sent you emails. But those days are long gone. Your post-Wade psychotic break changed everything.
The bottom line is that the Buy-and-Hold retirement studies have not been corrected to this day. I pointed out in my famous post from the morning of May 13, 2002, that the Greaney study lacks an adjustment for the valuation level that applies on the day the retirement begins. All of the words that have been spilled over the following 16 years show that I was right. Thousands of people have looked at the Greaney study during that time. Not one has been able to identify a valuation adjustment. A failed retirement is a serious life setback. Greaney should have corrected his study within 24 hours of the moment when he learned of the error he made in it.
Now —
The backstory is that Greaney’s retirement study would be perfect in a world in which the market was efficient, which is the world that Bogle thought we lived in at the time when he developed the Buy-and-Hold strategy. The idea that the market is efficient was born in 1965, when Fama published research showing that short-time timing doesn’t work. Lots of good and smart people jumped to the conclusion that no form of timing works. Shiller showed in 1981 that this conclusion was a false one. He showed that long-term timing (price discipline) always works and is always required for investors seeking to keep their risk profile roughly constant over time. Shiller has described the intellectual leap from the finding that short-term price changes are unpredictable to the Buy-and-Hold conclusion that the market sets prices properly as “one of the most remarkable errors in the history of economics.” That’s the core dispute. Buy-and-Hold is rooted in error, the error was revealed by the peer-reviewed research in this field 37 years ago, and now that the error has been covered up for 37 years, the Buy-and-Holders are very, very, very, very much opposed to seeing it exposed.
I refuse to post dishonestly re the numbers that my friends are using to plan their retirements. So you see me as your enemy. I don’t see it that way. The way that I see it is that we all want the same things and so we all should be working together to learn how stock investing really works in the real world. But there are no words that I can put forward that can persuade you. You don’t want millions of middle-class investors to learn that you got the numbers they have been using to plan their retirements wrong and I am 100 percent unwilling to post dishonestly re the matter, no matter how much in the way of intimidation tactics are applied, so we work at cross purposes.
I don’t like that reality but it remains the reality that I must deal with all the same. I agree with what Wade Pfau said in the days before you Goons threatened him with career destruction and John Bogle failed to step in an help the man — the Buy-and-Hold retirement studies are “dangerous.” They should be corrected. At the very bare minimum, anyone who points someone to one of the Buy-and-Hold retirement studies for use in planning a retirement should let that person know that there are today two schools of academic thought as to how stock investing works, not one, and let that person make the decision as to whether to rely on the numbers generated by the Buy-and-Hold studies or the numbers generated by the Valuation-Informed Indexing studies.
We will learn together how it all plays out in the days following the next price crash. I can wish you the best of luck with it because I think of you Goons as friends. But that’s as far as I can go. I cannot post dishonestly re the numbers that my friends are using to plan their retirements. No way, no how. Zero chance. Not in 16 years, not in 16 billion years. I truly wish that you would make an effort to find somebody else.
I naturally wish you the best of luck in all your future life endeavors in any event, my dear Goon friend.
Fantasy Man Rob
“A failed retirement is a serious life setback.”
Don’t you find it ironic that you are saying that everyone else will eventually have a failed retirement m when you have already had a failed retirement.
I wish you the best of luck in all your future life endeavors, Anonymous.
Does that help at all?
Ironic Rob
“The bottom line is that … I don’t like that reality.”
Yes, that’s what I said. You don’t like reality and you refuse to spend any time there. Everything else in your comment is the same old imaginary bullshit. And they’re not even interesting fantasies. They’re boring. Since you’ve already completely abandoned reality, then let your fantasies fly. Need help? How about this to get started:
“I was laying outside in my yard, naked. My stupid old lady neighbor gave me her same stupid look. It’s my yard, you old bag. Then suddenly Wade, my green and purple tree frog, started croaking “GREANEY,GREANEY,GREANEY”
Okay.
I do wish you all good things.
Please take good care, old friend.
Anti-Reality, Anti-Greaney Rob
Rob,
If these “goons” never existed, how do you think your life would have been different, other than the loss of mild entertainment?
That’s like asking an oncologist how his life would have been different if cancer had never existed. In one sense, it would have been better. The oncologist devotes his human energies to defeating cancer, just as I devote my human energies to defeating the Get Rich Quick urge that animates the Buy-and-Hold strategy. So there is a sense in which the oncologist sees cancer as the enemy. But he doesn’t avoid cancer in the way that he might avoid some other enemies. He goes looking for people who have cancer to see if he can help them. He reads all that he can about new developments in the treatment of cancer. He wants to know everything about cancer so that he can do a better job eradicating it (because he loves people and cancer hurts people). So do I want to know everything about goonisness/Get Rich Quick thinking because I want to eradicate it (because goonishness/Get Rich Quick thinking hurts people and I love people).
Does that help at all? I like you Goons as people, Anonymous. For all sorts of reasons. Because I learn from you, for one. But I believe strongly that, if you were thinking clearly, you would work hard to rein in your Goon inclinations. Because those Goon inclinations hurt you in very, very serious ways. You need to know how stock investing works. We all do. But you have made a decision never to listen to the 10 percent of the population that believes that Shiller’s research is legitimate research because those people say things that make you feel uncomfortable. I don’t apologize for making you feel uncomfortable. I think that there are circumstances in which we must live through a measure of discomfort to get to a better place and to experience lots of exciting, wonderful stuff. The words that I direct at you are aimed at helping you to find your way to that place or at helping others find their way to that place in the event that you elect not to go there and others elect to visit this site in the hopes of learning what they need to learn to find their way to that better place.
Does that help at all? I don’t like goonishness. But I appreciate that goonishness often resides within good and smart people who would disdain their own goonishness if they were able to see it. I cannot force anyone to see their own goonishness. But I can point it out to them and to others. And if they or the others reach a point where they are interested in seeing how the goonishness is a negative, they can benefit from seeing how it all works.
Goonishness/Get Rich Quick/Buy-and-Hold is bad. That’s my sincere take. I was once a Buy-and-Holder myself. That was because Buy-and-Hold was promoted as a research-based strategy and that’s what I was looking for. I think that Get Rich Quick emotions can hurt investors and I like the idea of teaching people what the research shows so that they can rein in those emotions. On the evening of August 27, 2002, when Greaney advanced his first death threat and 200 of my fellow community members endorsed the post containing it, I lost confidence in Buy-and-Hold. I cannot endorse a strategy that prompts people to go down that dark path.
Get Rich Quick investing is my cancer. I love the people who follow Buy-and-Hold strategies. I devote my human energies to showing them that that is a mistake. I love the people, I don’t love the cancer. My job is to remove the cancer, my job is to defeat the cancer.
If we lived in a world in which there were no Get Rich Quick/Buy-and-Hold urge, I would need to find something else to do with my time, just as an oncologist who was moved to a world in which there was no cancer would need to find something else to do with his time. I see no signs that Get Rich Quick investing strategies are going to disappear from our world anytime soon. So I intend to just keep doing what I can to help people overcome the Buy-and-Hold stuff. If I could wave a magic wand in the air and make the Get Rich Quick urge go away, I would do it. But I obviously don’t possess those sorts if powers. So I do what I do instead.
I hope that helps a small bit. I wish you all good things.
Cancer-Fighting Rob
Tell us when you left you salary job and how that ties to what you just wrote. Were you consulting with your crystal ball at that time?
I left my corporate job on August 1, 2000.
I have never consulted a crystal ball. So that question makes no sense.
Rob
“I left my corporate job on August 1, 2000.”
And you had a detailed plan for what you would be doing after that. Which you never talk about anymore, but is it fair to say that your original plan bears no resemblance to your current reality (there’s that awful word again)?
The plan when I left my job was that I would earn $20,000 per year selling personal finance reports on the internet. I tested the concept before I left my job. I earned $15,000 in six months from my Soapbox.com report (“Secrets of Retiring Early”) and it took me about 3 months to write that report. If I produced four reports each year and earned $30,ooo per year from each of them, I obviously would be earning a good bit more than $20,ooo per year. So I was in good shape.
Soapbox.com shut down in February 2001. So I had to make a new plan. Given the success of the Secrets report (it was the #1 best selling report in the history of the Soapbox.com site), it made sense to blow that report up to a full-length book. So I spent the next period of time doing that. That project became my Passion Saving book.
Before I finished the Passion Saving book, Greaney launched his smear campaign against Wanderer. We were losing all of our best posters due to his abusive behavior. So I had to do something to save that board (I could not have produced the Passion Saving book without all of the things that I learned from that amazing community of aspiring early retirees). So I worked up the courage to put forward my famous post of the morning of May 13, 2002.
The rest is history.
Did things turn out the way I expected? No. If you had asked me on the morning of May 13, 2002, to give the odds of things going as they have, I would have put them at 10 million to one. But here we are, you know? It’s certainly not what I expected. But I am very, very proud of the work that I have done. Perhaps things will turn out a lot better than I ever could have expected in the days following the next price crash. We will have to wait and see to find out how that goes.
There’s no amount of money that could ever persuade me to post dishonestly re the numbers that my friends are using to plan their retirements. Asking me to do that is like asking me to flap my arms in the air and fly to the moon. It cannot happen. Thus, it never does happen. Whether things go as I expect them to or not doesn’t change that. I am not capable of doing things that I am not capable of doing. I need to be able to live with myself. I am not able to see how anyone can live with himself if he posts dishonestly re the numbers that his friends use to plan their retirements.
So, no, things have not gone as I expected. In some ways, they have gone a lot worse. In other ways, the have gone a lot better. The good news here has been 50 times more good than the bad news here has been bad. The Bennett/Pfau research paper is the most important research done in this field in the past 30 years. That paper wouldn’t exist if I had never worked up the courage to post honestly re safe withdrawal rates. So I think it would be fair to say that my decision has paid off in a huge way. Just not financially, which I think is what you are getting at. Financially, it has been a catastrophe. It would be hard to imagine any decision that could pay off worse financially. My investing stuff has driven away people who loved my saving stuff. So the investing stuff has so far provided me a negative return. Yikes!
Does that help?
Negative Return Rob
So, you had an income stream that was dependent on other people’s websites, so it wasn’t really an established/stable revenue stream. Your follow up plan seems to be relying on getting settlement payments that were clearly not your plan at the time you left your job. Why would you not just go back to the working world to provide greater certainty to your retirement?
The plan was 100 percent established. I was the most popular poster at the entire Motley Fool site. My report generated $15,000 in only six months and I had the ability to produce four new reports each year. Thousands of people have made fortunes on the internet. It is the future of journalism and I have decades of experience in the field. Nothing could be more established.
You Goons had to engage in criminal behavior to stop me. Huh? What the f? I obviously could not anticipate that some internet goon who got an important number wrong in a retirement study posted at his web site would engage in criminal behavior to keep people from learning about it and that others Goons would join his effort and that the owners of numerous sites would tolerate this behavior because the Get Rich Quick approach to stock investing being advocated by the Goon was popular at the time.
Why wouldn’t I seek damages for the losses suffered? That’s how our system works. And it will do huge good for this new communication medium for me to be awarded those damages. Many good people hate the abusive stuff they see on the internet. What do you think is going to happen when word gets out that I have been awarded damages of $500 million or more. The level of abusiveness is going to go way down.
The same thing is true re the announcement of prison sentences. Again, that will bring the level of abusiveness way down. This is a powerful communications medium. We should all want to see the sorts of individuals who have put up posts in “defense” of Mel Lindauer and John Greaney and Jack Bogle to pay a penalty for their behavior. Seeing that will encourage people who have good things to offer to offer them. I would love to see that and I will feel honored that I was able to play a role in bringing it about. Are you joking?
Our system works. It’s you Goons who followed a bad plan when you chose to engage in criminal acts and to incur many millions in civil liabilities. Guess who suggested that you might not want to go there many years ago? Your old friend Farmer Hocus! Who’d a thunk it?
Think about it this way. Would you have gone down the dark path you went down if people who came before you had been sent to prison and had paid huge civil penalties as a result of their abusive behavior? You wouldn’t have. You were hurt because people did not seek these sorts of damages in earlier days. I don’t want to do that to any future Goons. I intend to do what I need to do to make it clear to all that the laws of the United States apply to the internet. I mean. come on.
I’m following a good plan. I’m not going to prison. I am not going to be paying any damages in the days following the next price crash. It is you Goons who are following a very, very, very, very bad plan. I am 100 percent sure.
My best wishes to you and yours.
Solid Plan Rob
“My report generated $15,000 in only six months and I had the ability to produce four new reports each year. ”
It doesn’t matter what you can produce. What matters is what you can sell. Further, you are the one that wrecked your reputation. No one owes you a business and no one but you is responsible for the success or failure of your business.
A jury will decide the matter, Anonymous. That’s how our system works. And I think it is a great system.
I wish you the best of luck with it. I hope that helps a small bit.
Reputation Wrecked Rob
“Yours comes with death threats and demands for unjustified board bannings and thousands of acts of defamation and threats to get academic researchers fired from their jobs.”
Death threats? You mean this link you sent to the police that is obviously not a death threat?
https://boards.fool.com/sydsydsyd-theyre-taking-them-down-as-fast-as-we-18207722.aspx?sort=postdate
I did indeed show that to the police. And, yes, that is indeed a death threat.
Posts like that do not belong in discussions of how stock investing works. And it is ALWAYS the Buy-and-Holders who advance such posts. It is only a small number of Buy-and-Holders who do that sort of thing. But it is a LARGE percentage of the population of Buy-and-Holders who TOLERATE that sort of thing.
Motley Fool should have banned the person who advanced that post. The post is clearly in violation of their published rules. They didn’t ban the person who advanced the post because the majority of the population of the board was Buy-and-Holders and Motley Fool wanted the money that came in as a result of having those people at the site.
This is why Buy-and-Hold is so dangerous. It is an emotion-based strategy. It cannot survive in a world in which posting based on the last 37 years of peer-reviewed research is permitted. So it is not just that the Buy-and-Holders get it wrong. Getting it wrong is a small thing in relative terms. It is that the Buy-and-Holders cannot tolerate anyone else getting it right. Buy-and-Holders attack those who advocate research-based strategies because, when people come to see the merits of research-based strategies, it makes the Buy-and-Holders look bad for promoting the OPPOSITE of what works. What works is to always practice price discipline when buying stocks. Buy-and-Holders tell investors NOT to exercise price discipline (long-term timing). Huh? What the f?
I OPPOSE that sort of post, Anonymous. Please feel free to spread the word all across the internet. I would feel that you were doing me a favor by doing so. That sort of thing is not my particular cup of tea. It’s not a close call. The primary reason why I chose to build the Retire Early at Motley Fool is that they had the strongest rules on the internet protecting people from that sort of posting behavior. Motley Fool should have enforced its published rules in a reasonable manner despite the fact that it would cost them a few bucks in the short term to do so. You Goons wouldn’t be going to prison had they done that. So we would all be better off had Motley Fool just done its job.
That’s my sincere take re these terribly important matters, in any event. I naturally wish you the best of luck in all your future life endeavors, in any event.
Death-Threat Critic Rob
“And, yes, that is indeed a death threat.”
THAT’S the so-called death threat you’ve been railing about all these years? No, indeed it is not a threat. It’s a discussion of guns and ammunition. The most a rational person could say is that it was off topic for the forum. Of course, society has abundantly documented the fact that you are not a rational person.
I read the entire thread and you weren’t even mentioned. Only someone suffering from severe paranoia would interpret that discussion as a threat.
A jury will decide the matter. That’s how our system works.
I naturally wish you all good things.
Severely Paranoid Rob