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.
@dtconroe- You've provided an interesting background regarding FD. Always (well, usually, anyway) two or more sides to a situation. Thanks for the info.
OJ, I want to note that FD has run some of the most popular threads, on several different forums over the years. He developed a large following from bond oef investors, with his monthly threads on Bond OEFs. He offered some detailed charts of bond oefs by category, with a listing of diagnostic information, and performance history. It was a ton of monthly work, but very valued by a large number of posters.
Your statements quoted above are certainly true. However, there is much more to this story. I won't get into the details, but suffice to say, FD's behavior was sometimes inappropriate and caused acrimonious disputes. You seem to imply (I may be mistaken) that if a poster creates popular threads and develops a large following, forum participants should ignore his or her egregious behavior. If this is in fact your judgement, I respectfully disagree with the notion. Just my 2 cents...
dtconroe said: "I want to note that FD has run some of the most popular threads, on several different forums over the years. He developed a large following from bond oef investors, with his monthly threads on Bond OEFs. He offered some detailed charts of bond oefs by category, with a listing of diagnostic information, and performance history. It was a ton of monthly work, but very valued by a large number of posters."
Fully agree, dt, since I was one of those many posters who gained a lot from FD's monthly diagnostic charts of bond OEFs.
I miss the valuable contributions he made in the past, and am just sorry to see that he is wasting his talent, and his and our time, by letting himself be so easily distracted by ad hominem attacks of a few posters.
As racqueteer said: "It is also not compulsory to respond to someone's post. If you can refute their argument with FACTS and LOGIC, have at it. Otherwise, move on. Why is that so difficult?"
In fairness to FD, I can't think of an instance where he ever INITIATED an attack on someone; nor one where he didn't provide data to support his case. EVIDENCE, I would point out, HAS to be accumulated AFTER the fact (a common criticism of FD). Basically, it all comes down to whether one LIKES the way FD posts. I would contend that LIKING someone (or their posting style) shouldn't be used as an excuse for poor behavior on YOUR part. I personally find the behavior of those who engaged in personal attacks on FD, callously sidetracking the threads of others, to be FAR more egregious, but that's just me. It should never become an issue of personality.
Your statements quoted above are certainly true. However, there is much more to this story. I won't get into the details, but suffice to say, FD's behavior was sometimes inappropriate and caused acrimonious disputes. You seem to imply (I may be mistaken) that if a poster creates popular threads and develops a large following, forum participants should ignore his or her egregious behavior. If this is in fact your judgement, I respectfully disagree with the notion. Just my 2 cents...
Observant, FD did not ask for this thread, but in the title of the thread, the OP specifically addressed a question to him. My "judgement" is that this thread should have never been started by the OP, if she and FD have some sort of acrimonious communication history, that was alluded to in the initial thread exchanges between she and FD. Under those circumstances, she should have communicated directly to FD, on the Personal Messaging system, and had a private communication with him. In that Personal Messaging system, they could have "attempted" to work through whatever acrimonious history they had, "attempted" to resolve that, and then "attempted" to discuss how to apply that investing technique to those 2 specific bond oefs. Instead, it became a public thread, instantly led to old detractors of FD to jump in and start posting inflammatory statements, which led the thread to be doomed to a "spitting contest".
If you "disagree with that notion", then that is your prerogative--just my 2 cents.....
I'm inclined to agree with DT here. Given the prior history between the two, it would seem more appropriate to make personal contact if some accord is to be attained. Such personal issues should not be handled publically (imo). Posts should be of interest to everyone reading them; not a forum for one's personal issues; again, imo.
Back when the M* forums were popular FD was rather demeaning to an individual, retired from a career in military service, for the relatively modest value of his portfolio. It was a cheap shot and several other forum members came to the serviceman's defense. I am pretty certain FD never apologized and I believe you were there at the time. The serviceman ultimately left the forum.
A small number of dedicated people have put in time and effort to provide updates and analyses of a few talking heads, e.g. Jeremy Siegel, on other fora such as Armchairinvesting largely to foster better understanding of our current investing environment. FD's response has been predatory, antagonistic, and incessant. These people have largely curtailed their contributions. I am not sure if FD is now welcome at Armchairinvesting but I do know this is why he is currently suspended from Big Bang.
FD has a rather long history of demeaning other forum members, lecturing them about their choices, and beating his chest about his own (unsubstantiated?) investing prowess. If "It should never become an issue of personality" how should we react to rather repugnant behavior? Both individuals and communities have already spoken.
In order to make this entry relevant to the OP, I cannot help but wonder if there are other sources we can turn to for a better understanding of the 3-Line Break. A quick Google search yields many offerings including a class at www.StockCharts.com and several youtube videos. Best wishes for finding the answers you seek.
I'm inclined to agree with DT here. Given the prior history between the two, it would seem more appropriate to make personal contact if some accord is to be attained. Such personal issues should not be handled publically (imo). Posts should be of interest to everyone reading them; not a forum for one's personal issues; again, imo.
racqueteer, I asked a serious question that I thought would also interest others. In retrospect, I gather that I should have left off my second sentence, but like so many others, I have been conditioned. I apologize to the members of MFO for the post.
i have followed fd, in one way or another, for as long as my ancient brain can remember and, truth to tell, he's made me a lot more money than i know i would have made on my own. i've thanked him publicly (and privately) and will continue to do so. even though his posting style might not always be to my liking, i just ignore the so-called bad and whistle (largely) to the bank with the good.
he beat the drum early and often for the benefits of PRWCX, which i've steadfastly held ever since, and for IOFIX, during its stellar run (with an equal amount of thanks-for-that going to the ever level-headed and never-inflammatory junkster, long may he run). i've made money with the three-line break ... and lost it, too, largely due to my own dunderheadedness. my point is: like him or not, he brings something to the table (IMHO) and he stirs up discussion and opinion like no other and i like that and so far haven't found a reason to take terminal offense.
I recently deleted a lengthy post I’d put up. Before I’d even finished editing it, FD admonished me for going “off topic.” In response, I than deleted the post. But I want people to know the reason had little, if anything, to do with FD’s complaint. In truth I deleted it because it was a dumb post. And I didn’t want to have to defend or clarify my misguided comments to the demanding intelligent people here. So, FD did me a favor in that instance. (And he was correct that it was off topic as well.)
Now, to quote The Lord of the Flies in Golding’s novel: “This has gone quite far enough …”
Comments
@dtconroe,
Your statements quoted above are certainly true.
However, there is much more to this story.
I won't get into the details, but suffice to say, FD's behavior was sometimes inappropriate
and caused acrimonious disputes.
You seem to imply (I may be mistaken) that if a poster creates popular threads
and develops a large following, forum participants should ignore his or her egregious behavior.
If this is in fact your judgement, I respectfully disagree with the notion.
Just my 2 cents...
Fully agree, dt, since I was one of those many posters who gained a lot from FD's monthly diagnostic charts of bond OEFs.
I miss the valuable contributions he made in the past, and am just sorry to see that he is wasting his talent, and his and our time, by letting himself be so easily distracted by ad hominem attacks of a few posters.
As racqueteer said: "It is also not compulsory to respond to someone's post. If you can refute their argument with FACTS and LOGIC, have at it. Otherwise, move on. Why is that so difficult?"
Fred
@dtconroe,
Your statements quoted above are certainly true.
However, there is much more to this story.
I won't get into the details, but suffice to say, FD's behavior was sometimes inappropriate
and caused acrimonious disputes.
You seem to imply (I may be mistaken) that if a poster creates popular threads
and develops a large following, forum participants should ignore his or her egregious behavior.
If this is in fact your judgement, I respectfully disagree with the notion.
Just my 2 cents...
Observant, FD did not ask for this thread, but in the title of the thread, the OP specifically addressed a question to him. My "judgement" is that this thread should have never been started by the OP, if she and FD have some sort of acrimonious communication history, that was alluded to in the initial thread exchanges between she and FD. Under those circumstances, she should have communicated directly to FD, on the Personal Messaging system, and had a private communication with him. In that Personal Messaging system, they could have "attempted" to work through whatever acrimonious history they had, "attempted" to resolve that, and then "attempted" to discuss how to apply that investing technique to those 2 specific bond oefs. Instead, it became a public thread, instantly led to old detractors of FD to jump in and start posting inflammatory statements, which led the thread to be doomed to a "spitting contest".
If you "disagree with that notion", then that is your prerogative--just my 2 cents.....
Back when the M* forums were popular FD was rather demeaning to an individual, retired from a career in military service, for the relatively modest value of his portfolio. It was a cheap shot and several other forum members came to the serviceman's defense. I am pretty certain FD never apologized and I believe you were there at the time. The serviceman ultimately left the forum.
A small number of dedicated people have put in time and effort to provide updates and analyses of a few talking heads, e.g. Jeremy Siegel, on other fora such as Armchairinvesting largely to foster better understanding of our current investing environment. FD's response has been predatory, antagonistic, and incessant. These people have largely curtailed their contributions. I am not sure if FD is now welcome at Armchairinvesting but I do know this is why he is currently suspended from Big Bang.
FD has a rather long history of demeaning other forum members, lecturing them about their choices, and beating his chest about his own (unsubstantiated?) investing prowess. If "It should never become an issue of personality" how should we react to rather repugnant behavior? Both individuals and communities have already spoken.
In order to make this entry relevant to the OP, I cannot help but wonder if there are other sources we can turn to for a better understanding of the 3-Line Break. A quick Google search yields many offerings including a class at www.StockCharts.com and several youtube videos. Best wishes for finding the answers you seek.
he beat the drum early and often for the benefits of PRWCX, which i've steadfastly held ever since, and for IOFIX, during its stellar run (with an equal amount of thanks-for-that going to the ever level-headed and never-inflammatory junkster, long may he run). i've made money with the three-line break ... and lost it, too, largely due to my own dunderheadedness. my point is: like him or not, he brings something to the table (IMHO) and he stirs up discussion and opinion like no other and i like that and so far haven't found a reason to take terminal offense.
Now, to quote The Lord of the Flies in Golding’s novel: “This has gone quite far enough …”
I say amen to that.
Fred