Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

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.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

Ted is a Prized Investment Multiplier

Hi Ted,

I regret your tentative decision to abandon your self-imposed MFO Linking task. Other MFO Discussion contributors will likewise regret your departure.

I remember an instance when you stopped posting for a rather lengthy period. I don’t recall the reason, but I do recall the impact. The website became far less useful as an investing tool. Almost immediately it lost its dynamic character and quickly devolved into dullness.

You have done yeoman service to our MFO investing population. Please reconsider your decision. Decisions of this nature, especially under inconclusive and by no means universal disapproval, are likely emotional and need not be permanent. They are easily reversible. Please consider that option once again.

I surely do not read all your many posts; but I do access somewhere between 10 and 20 percent of them. They have served me well.

In war, the military has a term called a “Force Multiplier”. It’s anything that gives its user an extra-kick, an edge. In the MFO world, your fine references are an “ Investment Multiplier”. I gratefully acknowledge that it gives me a much needed edge.

Famous investor Phillip Fischer said: “The typical investor has usually gathered a good deal of half-truths, misconceptions, and just plain bunk about successful investing”. Your diligent research goes a long way to sweeping away that wealth robbing flotsam.

As ex-military, I urge you to continue the march.

Whatever your final, final decision, I wish you and your family only the very best.

My Very Best Regards.

Comments

  • @Ted: I would second MJG's thoughts, above. I'd much rather have MFO with your contributions than without. Perhaps you might talk to David and see if he can loosen the reins a little.

    Regards- OJ
  • I'm not sure why Ted would depart.
  • @Scott- I'm guessing that it may have something to do with David's request to include some explanatory text when publishing links. Not sure what else it could be...
  • Like MJG, I read about 10-20% of Ted's links. There is some value in his postings. I don't think David said to stop posting links but rather to add some comments to postings. I took that request as applying to all posters and not just Ted.

    I hope Ted will reconsider his decision.
  • Ted posts a lot of great stuff, including things that a lot of us don't have access to, such as subscription only articles from the Wall Street Journal and Barrons.

    I hope Ted reconsiders and doesn't leave

  • I second that. We appreciate you, Ted.
  • Ted, your work on this site is very much appreciated. Ignore the naysayers.
  • edited June 2014
    This is for Ted. No kidding.
  • I don't think Shane came back, did he? (Perhaps not the most apropos video clip.) But, maybe he did; I don't watch classic films (or any others).

    I hope Ted returns, AND I hope he indicates why he posts the links. Some offer nothing useful, but I can't tell from the titles. The Professor's request that one indicate why a link was posted would have made the discussion site more useful. Useful links generate comments, which seem to follow fewer of the links than in the past. Ted's parting post was to a factoid that was somewhat interesting, but had no investment value that I could detect. Comments such as "Who appointed you God" and "Who are you to tell me what to post?" were definitely not collegial.

    The suggestion to have a separate "links" thread has some merit, especially if the links with comments bounce back to the main discussions page.

    "Without you twirling it, the earth still spins" (or something close to that.) Guess we'll see.

  • I agree with the notion that links should not be posted unless the article has been read by the poster and a one sentence description of why it is of interest to the discussion community is provided. Otherwise its a low or no value effort. Likewise for embedded videos. Just my take and I am certain others may disagree.

    Departure by members is a drastic step. I regret ALL departures by people who can meaningfully contribute to discussion of mutual fund investing whether I agree with them or not.
  • I hope my question about Art Cashin didn't start this.
    I do think there is a value to posting a bit about why an article is of interest - not just the link.
  • Yes, otherwise you're left guessing at what it is you're clicking on.
Sign In or Register to comment.