Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
David, how do you handle over zealous, groundhog day, ever repeating, broken clock posters?? It's hard not to engage them in sometimes contentious discussions.
Edit: OK, edited former post. I guess the best way and most harmonious for the board is to simply avoid such posters by not clicking on their posts.
Junkster, Appreciate your editing. I thought the earlier swipe at a former poster was unfounded and unkind. But, I'm with you in the essence of the rhetorical question you ask of David. I enjoy contention. IMHO contention is very much a part of being a "vibrant" board. Do we really want sterility? As qualifiers, I think this contention should be directed (1) at issues rather than personalities and (2) towards members you are reasonably confident can handle that kind of give and take. By that I mean don't run somebody into the ground who you believe will suffer injury as a consequence. Use some common sense in whom you choose to pick a fight with. I'll confess to having unwittingly gone overboard in contentiousness in the past. Part of the learning curve here is to learn when to stand up and when to stand down.
I do agree with David's admonition not to attack someone's portfolio - unless, that is, they have specifically invited criticism. But if somebody simply has the b**** to lay it out there as an example of their thought process and not as a model for imitation; than decorum, I believe, should dictate that we not attack their investment choices. Years ago I emailed a humble apology to a board member after criticizing his/her unusually high cash level during a board discussion. It had dawned on me sometime later (duh) that should the markets crater and this person and their spouse loose a large portion of their life savings, it would be they (and not me) that would suffer the financial consequences. Maybe all of us should keep that fact in mind.
It's a great board with some great minds. Let's keep it great. Regards
Hi STB65. Perhaps a poor choice of words on my part. So, here's what David actually said: "Sniping, whether about the quality of another poster's portfolio or argument: don't."
I don't disagree with your take here. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't misrepresenting David's remarks.
Comments
Regards,
Ted
In any case stay healthy Ted.
I do agree with David's admonition not to attack someone's portfolio - unless, that is, they have specifically invited criticism. But if somebody simply has the b**** to lay it out there as an example of their thought process and not as a model for imitation; than decorum, I believe, should dictate that we not attack their investment choices. Years ago I emailed a humble apology to a board member after criticizing his/her unusually high cash level during a board discussion. It had dawned on me sometime later (duh) that should the markets crater and this person and their spouse loose a large portion of their life savings, it would be they (and not me) that would suffer the financial consequences. Maybe all of us should keep that fact in mind.
It's a great board with some great minds. Let's keep it great. Regards
I don't disagree with your take here. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't misrepresenting David's remarks.
Regards