Tuesday’s blog entry set forth the text of an e-mail that I received from Mike Piper explaining his decision to delete a comment that I put to a blog entry at his Oblivious Investor blog reviewing the Bogleheads’ Guide to Retirement Planning. The comment pointed out the role of the authors in imposing a ban on honest posting on safe withdrawal rates and other important investment topics at the Vanguard Diehards board and at the Bogleheads.org forum. Set forth below is the text of my response to Mike:
Mike:
I believe that you are trying to take things in a positive direction. I applaud you
for that. We need some people from “your side” taking more constructive and
reasonable positions.
If you do not object, I will run the text of your e-mail as a blog entry at my site
(if you do object, I will summarize it). Your e-mail is news. It tells people how
those among the Passive Investing advocates who are trying to take things
in a positive direction are handling these sorts of issues today.
I would be grateful if you would include a note in the comments section of
the blog entry saying that Rob Bennett posted a comment that you deleted on
grounds that it was not on topic and that I will be reporting on the matter at my
blog.
My view is that integrity issues are always on topic. Mel and Taylor would
not have a book contract but for the work done at those boards by thousands of
good and smart and honest people. The ban on honest posting is a betrayal
of those people and their intent in building the board. People thinking of
taking the retirement advice offered in the book into consideration need to
know whether the authors can be trusted. The fact that they favor a
ban on honest posting on safe withdrawal rates (SWRs) goes to this question.
I am happy to hear that there are few references to SWRs in the book.
That is obviously a good thing and I think it would be fair to say that it is
my efforts (supplemented by the efforts of the thousands of community
members who have expressed a desire that honest posting be permitted)
that are primarily responsible for that encouraging reality of today. The darker
reality is that Taylor and Mel have not learned what they could have learned
from their discovery that the Old School SWR studies got all the numbers
wrong. Everything that I have learned about investing over the past seven
years followed from my discovery of the errors in the Old School studies
and what I learned by thinking through the implication of the reality that
so many good and smart people could get their retirement planning advice
so terribly and dangerously wrong and fail to fix things for so many years
after the errors were brought to their attention.
Thanks for the tone evidenced in your e-mail. I of course do not agree
with your decision to delete the comment. I certainly understand why
the comment causes discomfort. I interpret your reasonable tone as
evidencing a desire to see these matters handled in a constructive and
positive way. If that happens, I am confident that every single member of
the Indexing community (including Taylor and Mel and John Bogle,
to be sure) will be feeling a whole lot better about themselves and about
their advocacy of the indexing concept in days to come.
Rob
DRiP Guy says
Rob, I say this not to put you down, but to help. Upon finding your off-topic post was not going to fly, you directed Mike Piper:
“…include a note in the comments section of
the blog entry saying that Rob Bennett posted a comment that you deleted ongrounds that it was not on topic and that I will be reporting on the matter at myblog.”
Can you understand the degree of hubris and self-absorption most would take from the fact a person whose post was so noxious as to need to be removed, did not apologize for that fact, but actually replied by giving DIRECTIONS to the admin as to what they wanted to see in the admin’s note (to their own blog), regarding the deletion?
Let me ask you a question — do you extend the same privilege to those posting at your blog? I expect you do not. And just in case you do, if you elect not to post *this* reply, please post the following in your comments if my reply is deleted:
“Drip Guy asked that I include the following:
Can you understand the degree of hubris and self-absorption most would take from the fact a person whose post was so noxious as to need to be removed, did not apologize for that fact, but actually replied by giving DIRECTIONS to the admin on what they wanted to see in the admin’s note to their own blog, regarding the deletion?
Thanks in advance, Rob, because I am sure you will treat others at least as well as you ask them to treat you, since the Golden Rule is the cornerstone of pretty much all religions, and you claim you to be a devout Catholic and good Christian.
Rob says
you claim you to be a devout Catholic and good Christian.
I am not so sure about the “devout” part and the “good” part.
I think that a better way to say it would be that I am a struggling Catholic and an aspiring Christian.
My faith has never let me down. I let down my faith on pretty much a daily basis.
Rob
Rob says
I say this not to put you down, but to help
I have my doubts. Your tone is argumentative, Drip Guy.
Rob
Rob says
Can you understand the degree of hubris and self-absorption most would take from the fact a person whose post was so noxious as to need to be removed, did not apologize for that fact, but actually replied by giving DIRECTIONS to the admin as to what they wanted to see in the admin’s note (to their own blog), regarding the deletion?
There is zero hubris and self-absorption evident in the request I made of Mike.
You are of course putting forward a falsehood in saying that Mike found my comment “noxious.” I posted his e-mail explaining the reason for the deletion as Tuesday’s blog entry.
Mike also did go ahead and follow my “instruction” (the non-Goon word choice here is “request”). I think it is fair to conclude that he did not view the request as evidencing “hubris” and “self-absorption.”
Rob
Rob says
do you extend the same privilege to those posting at your blog?
Of course.
And I of course also protect my readers from the Goon tactics that are causing Mike’s unease today. Mel Lindauer is the author of two books that offer advice on investing. It was an act of insanity on his part to engage in the tactics that he engaged in to block honest posting on safe withdrawal rates (SWRs) at the Vanguard Diehards board. Had the Morningstar site administrators honored their responsibilities to that board community, Mel would not be in the situation that he is in today. Nor would Mike. Nor would Rob. Nor would Drip Guy.
When it is shown that numbers used in a retirement study are in error, the error needs to be corrected, Drip Guy. When errors in studies that people use to plan their retirements are not promptly corrected, one bad thing follows after another. Mike is ashamed to let his readers hear about Mel’s behavior and Morningstar’s behavior and Bogle’s behavior. And rightly so.
I get the shame. I understand why the matter is a sensitive one. What I am suggesting is that all responsible people work together to bring the shame and the anger and the humiliation and the promotion of demonstrably false retirement claims to an end. I’ve been doing that for over seven years now. All that is in the Post Archives, Drip Guy. Where have you been — hiding under the bed covers?
You are always welcomed to offer comments here that help people learn how to put together effective Retire Early plans or engage in Indexing strategies likely to provide good long-term results. You’ll be bounced out of here on your backside each time you put forward a comment aimed at insulting or shaming or dissing the thousands of good and smart and generous-spirited people who comprise our communities.
Get the diff?
When it comes to the trash talk, the Retire Early and Indexing communities don’t need the business that bad, my old friend. The way it is. Deal with it.
Rob
Rob says
the Golden Rule
Do Unto Passives As You Would Have Them Do Unto Rationals.
Isn’t that it?
Rob