cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
     
Highlighted
Contributor ○○○

Re: Analysis - My thoughts and thanks

All are very valid points!

To be honest, I was more than impressed (i.e., simply shocked) initially by the magic moves some here made - the fact that they posted 100% invested in bull, sold all at the peak just in time for bear, then switching to 100% at the bottom just a second before the bull.  By the way, there are people like that in almost every forum.  After a while, I realized what is going on and basically regard such information as noise to me.  But not everyone here does.  

There are people who provide hourly trivial and misleadingly-negative posts about the stock market; very soon, I simply regard those as interference, too. But not everyone here does, either.

My point is, to each her/his own; and this is the internet.  We are all mature ladies and gentlemen here and each can make each's decision on what to believe and what to ignore without the help of others; and we can respect what other people think or believe even when they differ drastically from us.  And learn to get along peacefully, if not harmoniously.  

Just my two cents without retribution:)

Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Analysis - My thoughts and thanks

Racq,

I think we agree. It's the data that matters!

If an astrologer were to claim that he can predict stock market movements by studying the alignment of the planets, that's all I need! I need transparent data. 

In the world of trading systems, the required data is the disclosure in real time (before the fact) of the stock price movements. Then, after the fact, we can determine whether his system works or not. Obviously, we would to do a series of such tests, but it's really very simple.

The burden of proof rests with the trader, not anyone else. It's not our job to prove that the astrologer is wrong; it's his responsibility to demonstrate that he's right.

Surely you agree, yes? If not, then I would be pleased to sell you my foolproof momentum trading system. Trust me! It's brilliant. 

Trader wannabes are a dime a dozen on the Internet. Only a fool would believe anything they read without demanding full transparency.

By the way, Capecod was a professional bond trader. Aside from having a sense of humor and often mentioning his bad trades, he posted what he was doing in real time.

Apples and oranges, Racq!

N.

Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Analysis - My thoughts and thanks

Capecod never gave me any doubt on his honesty with what he was doing and what his results were.  He never boasted about his wins.  And even up to the last post I read he admitted being human and still making mistakes.  Yes, even a trained professional trader makes mistakes in this business when it comes to timing Ms. Market.  

Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Analysis - My thoughts and thanks


@norbertc wrote:

Racq,

I think we agree. It's the data that matters!

If an astrologer were to claim that he can predict stock market movements by studying the alignment of the planets, that's all I need! I need transparent data. 


This is a little unclear to me, Norbert.  Do you mean that because he is an astrologer that's all you need to know because you don't believe in them?  If that's the case, where is the "transparent data" coming from?  Or does it mean that because the astrologer makes predictions beforehand, he's providing transparent data for you to evaluate AFTER you know how the predictions come out?  The latter is more logical, imo. 

Obviously it would be nice to have predictions beforehand, but I'm not sure the data requires that in order to be evaluated for predictive value.  It would also be useful to know if the data leads to a true cause-and-effect, is statistical in nature (sometimes it works, sometimes not), or if there is no predictive value whatsoever.  I'm happy having the raw data to analyze myself.  What and when someone ELSE concludes something or uses his conclusions to take action is of less value to me than the data and process involved.  Scientists seldom have a clear notion of where they're going to end up PRIOR to looking at the data.  No one predicted the existence or nature of the nucleus prior to Rutherford!  Gather the data, examine it, look for patterns between input and output, come up with a logical explanation, test the hypothesis/explanation, modify or discard the hypothesis.  I suspect that, in the case of finance, you're not going to get true cause-and-effect results; they are more likely to be statistical in nature.

Anyway, individual idiosyncrasies, my personal likes (or dislikes), the perceived believability/veracity of an individual, etc, has no bearing on the analysis of raw data.  IAE, I'll do my own analysis of the data and decide its value or lack thereof.  If I find flaws or limitations in the conclusions drawn from the data, I'll point them out; as I have done in the past.  Again, not my job to parent anyone online.


 

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Analysis - My thoughts and thanks

 

I'll give a shout-out in support of FD1001.

I've noticed most of this thread discussion is around bond funds, and CEFs.

For bond funds, no-one has been better at assessing, IMO than FD1001.  I also got a lot from dtconroe.  They did the spade work for me; I made final fund selection and timing. Their rationale and analysis stood on its own; regardless of any statements of their past personal performance.

Few investors own CEFs, and for many who do, they are niche allocations at best.  To me, I got a lot from Chamois, Lakeside, acumus...and Capecod. 

Capecod had a continuous CEF thread  on the Fidelity Forum...he introduced many there to CEFs.  However, in the Covid19 period free-fall for funds like PCI and PDI, things got contentious.  Investors losing money fast can get pretty nasty in their  postings.  One day, Capecod posted he was selling out 100%, and will wait a year or two to start investing again...even if PDI and PDI were at higher prices.  That by then, maybe funds would be in uptrend again.  Dick would never average down; he always bought in uptrends (that Pyramid Up thing again).  And then he was gone!

R48

 

 

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Contributor ○○○

Re: Analysis - My thoughts and thanks


@fred495 wrote:

@norbertc wrote:

Racq,

Thinking about my favorite posters, Capecod wins hands down. He taught me about investing in fixed income CEFs and that information made me a some good money.

Chang has also helped me make money with his disciplined "buy low" habit and clear-headed analysis of various funds. [...]

I'm more skeptical than you about a couple of short-term traders, who have claimed success without actually demonstrating it. Will leave it there.

Cheers,

N.


 

Norbert, I absolutely agree with your assessment of Capecod. By the way, he hasn't posted on the Fidelity Forum since April. Hope he is well.

However, I don't recall seeing much of Chang's "clear-headed analysis of various funds" on this forum. He certainly has strong opinions, but I must have overlooked Chang's talent in the fund analysis department. Are there any readily available examples you can point to?

On the other hand, I can easily point to a "short term trader" like FD who, in my opinion, is one of the best bond fund analysts on the M* discussion forum and has also made me some good money.

As a regular participant in the annual Challenge contest, I pay no attention to the various pissing contests and the resulting nasty insinuations that are being bandied about by various posters. Bloody boring, to say the least.

Fred


@retiredat48wrote:

I'll give a shout-out in support of FD1001.

I've noticed most of this thread discussion is around bond funds, and CEFs.

For bond funds, no-one has been better at assessing, IMO than FD1001.  I also got a lot from dtconroe.  They did the spade work for me; I made final fund selection and timing. Their rationale and analysis stood on its own; regardless of any statements of their past personal performance.

 

Well said, R48. I couldn't agree with you more regarding the significant contributions of FD1001 and dtconroe to the M* Forum.

I assume we are all adults around here and, as Racq said, it's "not my job to parent anyone online". Users of the internet have a very basic responsibility to do their "own analysis of the data and decide its value or lack thereof", that goes for fund comments/suggestions, poster's personal trading preferences, etc.. As I said, let's not turn disagreements into nasty personal attacks or juvenile pissing contests, please.

Fred

Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Analysis - My thoughts and thanks


@racqueteer wrote:

@norbertc wrote:

Racq,

I think we agree. It's the data that matters!

If an astrologer were to claim that he can predict stock market movements by studying the alignment of the planets, that's all I need! I need transparent data. 


This is a little unclear to me, Norbert.  Do you mean that because he is an astrologer that's all you need to know because you don't believe in them?  If that's the case, where is the "transparent data" coming from?  Or does it mean that because the astrologer makes predictions beforehand, he's providing transparent data for you to evaluate AFTER you know how the predictions come out?  The latter is more logical, imo. 

Obviously it would be nice to have predictions beforehand, but I'm not sure the data requires that in order to be evaluated for predictive value.  It would also be useful to know if the data leads to a true cause-and-effect, is statistical in nature (sometimes it works, sometimes not), or if there is no predictive value whatsoever.  I'm happy having the raw data to analyze myself.  What and when someone ELSE concludes something or uses his conclusions to take action is of less value to me than the data and process involved.  Scientists seldom have a clear notion of where they're going to end up PRIOR to looking at the data.  No one predicted the existence or nature of the nucleus prior to Rutherford!  Gather the data, examine it, look for patterns between input and output, come up with a logical explanation, test the hypothesis/explanation, modify or discard the hypothesis.  I suspect that, in the case of finance, you're not going to get true cause-and-effect results; they are more likely to be statistical in nature.

Anyway, individual idiosyncrasies, my personal likes (or dislikes), the perceived believability/veracity of an individual, etc, has no bearing on the analysis of raw data.  IAE, I'll do my own analysis of the data and decide its value or lack thereof.  If I find flaws or limitations in the conclusions drawn from the data, I'll point them out; as I have done in the past.  Again, not my job to parent anyone online.


Racq,

Hmmm. You only included part of my post. Well, that's one way to win a debate.

Evaluating a trading system requires transparency, not selected after-the-fact anecdotal evidence (a.k.a. BS). 

Of course I'm skeptical about using astrology to predict market activity. 

Again, it's not our job to uncover flaws in the astrologer's work; it's for the astrologer to provide full transparency. Of course it's not about my like or dislike of the guy; it's about his integrity.

N.

Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Analysis - My thoughts and thanks


@norbertc wrote:
Racq, Hmmm. You only included part of my post. Well, that's one way to win a debate.

Firstly, I'm not trying to 'win' anything, Norbert; I'm simply trying to clarify what I DID say (versus what I did not), explain my thinking, and respond to what YOU wrote.  In THIS case, I wasn't able to clearly understand what you wrote, so I asked about it.  I had originally intended to add more quotations (as I am here), but I didn't because nothing that followed elucidated your commentary, and there wasn't anything else which required a response from me.  You needn't expect ulterior motives or tricks from me; I guess I'm not clever enough to employ them!  8^b


@norbertc wrote:

Evaluating a trading system requires transparency, not selected after-the-fact anecdotal evidence (a.k.a. BS). 

I think that evaluating the degree of credence to accord to a prediction or the logic used to interpret data is affected by the above, but not the data itself.  Again, I concern myself with data and logic.  I apply the same approach to YOUR postings as to anyone else's.  You have no clear evidence to support YOUR conclusions.  That doesn't mean you aren't entitled to them; only that I don't have to agree, much less act on YOURS.  Surely you cannot disagree with that?


@norbertc wrote:

Of course I'm skeptical about using astrology to predict market activity. 


As am I.  I'll repeat myself:  I am skeptical of EVERYTHING in the absence of data and underlying logic.  That doesn't mean I won't listen.


@norbertc wrote:

Again, it's not our job to uncover flaws in the astrologer's work; it's for the astrologer to provide full transparency. Of course it's not about my like or dislike of the guy; it's about his integrity.


Here we fundamentally disagree...  If the astrologer provides his data and reasoning, then his conclusion/system can be evaluated.  All that is required for disproof is a single failure of his model.  The utility of the model can be determined by the universality of its employed logic (or lack thereof).  As to the last part, exactly what actual evidence do you have of "his integrity" pro or con? I haven't seen any?  What I've seen is basically, "I don't believe his statements. They are made after the fact".  And that you don't believe them because they are unlikely.  That's a subjective evaluation; it's not evidence; it's not established fact; it's inference.

I don't want to get bogged down in philosophy here, Norbert.  You think what you think.  Again, however, that has nothing to do with the data and analysis I talked about in this post.  EVALUATING individuals relative to their pronouncements is a whole other thing entirely.  Since you brought up the whole astrologer analogy, please allow me to point out that a whole LOT of the science of astronomy developed from the DATA recorded by ASTROLOGERS.  So while you (and I) may have our reservations about their credibility, the contribution of their collected DATA has been notable.  Is the data less valuable/useful because we don't happen to agree with the collectors and their thinking?  Do their timely predictions have any impact on the worth of the data?

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Analysis - My thoughts and thanks

This is not easy on a phone, so bear with me. I can't bold or color my text ...


@racqueteer wrote:

@norbertc wrote:
Racq, Hmmm. You only included part of my post. Well, that's one way to win a debate.

Firstly, I'm not trying to 'win' anything, Norbert; I'm simply trying to clarify what I DID say (versus what I did not), explain my thinking, and respond to what YOU wrote.  In THIS case, I wasn't able to clearly understand what you wrote, so I asked about it.  I had originally intended to add more quotations (as I am here), but I didn't because nothing that followed elucidated your commentary, and there wasn't anything else which required a response from me.  You needn't expect ulterior motives or tricks from me; I guess I'm not clever enough to employ them!  8^b

OK, fine.


@norbertc wrote:

Evaluating a trading system requires transparency, not selected after-the-fact anecdotal evidence (a.k.a. BS). 

I think that evaluating the degree of credence to accord to a prediction or the logic used to interpret data is affected by the above, but not the data itself.  Again, I concern myself with data and logic.  I apply the same approach to YOUR postings as to anyone else's.  You have no clear evidence to support YOUR conclusions.  That doesn't mean you aren't entitled to them; only that I don't have to agree, much less act on YOURS.  Surely you cannot disagree with that?

We're talking past each other. I also focus on data and logic. So, when our astrologer friend refuses to publish his predictions before the fact, there's no data. There are only his claims. So, no transparency.

I don't know how to express this issue any more clearly.

Let's say I claim to have invented a vaccine to stop Covid-19. Surely it would be reasonable to insist that I produce verifiable test results? Yes?

It's the same for astrologers or wannabe M* posters claiming investing brilliance: show me verifiable data!


@norbertc wrote:

Of course I'm skeptical about using astrology to predict market activity. 


As am I.  I'll repeat myself:  I am skeptical of EVERYTHING in the absence of data and underlying logic.  That doesn't mean I won't listen.

Then you might want to infuses your praise with a bit more skepticism.


@norbertc wrote:

Again, it's not our job to uncover flaws in the astrologer's work; it's for the astrologer to provide full transparency. Of course it's not about my like or dislike of the guy; it's about his integrity.


Here we fundamentally disagree...  If the astrologer provides his data and reasoning, then his conclusion/system can be evaluated.  All that is required for disproof is a single failure of his model.  The utility of the model can be determined by the universality of its employed logic (or lack thereof).  As to the last part, exactly what actual evidence do you have of "his integrity" pro or con? I haven't seen any?  What I've seen is basically, "I don't believe his statements. They are made after the fact".  And that you don't believe them because they are unlikely.  That's a subjective evaluation; it's not evidence; it's not established fact; it's inference.

Yes, if the astrologer provides his data (i.e. transparent full disclosure), his system can be evaluated. Otherwise I will remain skeptical and question his integrity. So should you!

I don't want to get bogged down in philosophy here, Norbert.  You think what you think.  Again, however, that has nothing to do with the data and analysis I talked about in this post.  EVALUATING individuals relative to their pronouncements is a whole other thing entirely.  Since you brought up the whole astrologer analogy, please allow me to point out that a whole LOT of the science of astronomy developed from the DATA recorded by ASTROLOGERS.  So while you (and I) may have our reservations about their credibility, the contribution of their collected DATA has been notable.  Is the data less valuable/useful because we don't happen to agree with the collectors and their thinking?  Do their timely predictions have any impact on the worth of the data?

The collection of astronomical data is obviously worthwhile. The problem arises when this data is used to make unverifiable predictions.

 

Highlighted
Participant ○

Re: Analysis - My thoughts and thanks

Racq .... perhaps you really are not understanding the subject or ramifications of the issue of which norbertc speaks, else you are being deliberately obtuse. Bottom line: perpetual outlandish claims require extraordinary proof, especially when they fly in the face of convention and statistical reasonableness. A lack of transparency for outlandish claims should certainly cast SERIOUS doubt on the claim itself as well as the character of the individual themselves.

If I tell you I can vigorously flap my arms and lift my feet off the ground, do you believe me? If I tell you I can pick a coin flip correctly 10 times in a row and I can do it with regularity, do you believe me? If I tell you I have cured cancer but only offer the serum privately to a select few, do you believe me?

Are you familiar with the "Sagan Standard"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard

Sheep believe what they want to believe, absent of evidence .... most of us are not sheep.

When a request for evidence and transparency is met with essentially 'I owe you nothing' or 'I only share my data privately with a few others', we (collectively as a forum) should owe them disbelief. It's really that simple. Your OP did the complete opposite. Either way, more posting probably won't shed light if those sentences do not resonate.

Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Analysis - My thoughts and thanks

I doubt @racqueteer is the least bit obtuse. It seems the original post was only his consensus opinion about how other members interact, and may provide insights into investing. 

This constant criticism of FD, I really don't understand? To some degree,  I find him informative, yet a bit funny. It is easy for me to leave it at that and take his posts for what it 's worth to me. 

I think he would be less funny if he ignored any criticism and went on with his personal style of posting.  No one has to attend to his posts.

 

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Analysis - My thoughts and thanks

@norbertc wrote:

Evaluating a trading system requires transparency, not selected after-the-fact anecdotal evidence (a.k.a. BS).

@racqueteer wrote:

I think that evaluating the degree of credence to accord to a prediction or the logic used to interpret data is affected by the above, but not the data itself.  Again, I concern myself with data and logic.  I apply the same approach to YOUR postings as to anyone else's.  You have no clear evidence to support YOUR conclusions.  That doesn't mean you aren't entitled to them; only that I don't have to agree, much less act on YOURS.  Surely you cannot disagree with that?

@norbertc wrote:

We're talking past each other. I also focus on data and logic. So, when our astrologer friend refuses to publish his predictions before the fact, there's no data. There are only his claims. So, no transparency.

I don't know how to express this issue any more clearly.

Ok, but to me, prediction isn't the data itself.  Data leads to prediction/hypothesis; not the other way around.  Prediction/hypothesis/conclusion would be part of the evaluation of the data/observations.  You're absolutely right that a prediction that doesn't follow from data would be worthless.  Again, you aren't evaluating data so much as evaluating the individual's veracity.  You're not contesting the correctness of the data being presented; nor the analysis of same.  You're contesting the veracity of the individual's statements.  You're contesting THAT on the basis of no evidence; just a gut feeling.  Look, do you have ANY problem with the tables of data?  Not the person providing it, but the actual numbers/data?  It required both time and energy to produce, and it wasn't coerced.  Is the data incorrect?  Is the analysis flawed?  It doesn't matter (to me) what, if anything, was done with it, or when it was done.  I don't know how to express MY pov any more clearly than THAT!  

@norbertc wrote:

Let's say I claim to have invented a vaccine to stop Covid-19. Surely it would be reasonable to insist that I produce verifiable test results? Yes?

It's the same for astrologers or wannabe M* posters claiming investing brilliance: show me verifiable data!

There are a couple of things operating here:  There is the claim of credit AND the cure itself.  Do we have a cure?  That requires data to establish in the FIRST place; so it would already be in place.  This is where I am - Show me the raw data you evaluated that indicates a cure.  Show me how you evaluated the data.

The secondary issue is who gets credit for the cure?  Completely different data set:  Who did what when?  Verified?  Methodology valid?  Reasoning valid?  The raw data is not dependent on EITHER being done first.


@norbertc wrote:

Of course I'm skeptical about using astrology to predict market activity. 


As am I.  I'll repeat myself:  I am skeptical of EVERYTHING in the absence of data and underlying logic.  That doesn't mean I won't listen.

Then you might want to infuses your praise with a bit more skepticism.

Of what, Norbert?  The table of data presented?  The process used to evaluate it?  THOSE are things I "praised".  I  don't have to agree with the conclusions drawn, nor do I have to accept anyone's word for anything involving their use of the data.  I have no evidence for the latter, pro OR con.  Nor do you.


@norbertc wrote:

Again, it's not our job to uncover flaws in the astrologer's work; it's for the astrologer to provide full transparency. Of course it's not about my like or dislike of the guy; it's about his integrity.


Here we fundamentally disagree...  If the astrologer provides his data and reasoning, then his conclusion/system can be evaluated.  All that is required for disproof is a single failure of his model.  The utility of the model can be determined by the universality of its employed logic (or lack thereof).  As to the last part, exactly what actual evidence do you have of "his integrity" pro or con? I haven't seen any?  What I've seen is basically, "I don't believe his statements. They are made after the fact".  And that you don't believe them because they are unlikely.  That's a subjective evaluation; it's not evidence; it's not established fact; it's inference.

Yes, if the astrologer provides his data (i.e. transparent full disclosure), his system can be evaluated. Otherwise I will remain skeptical and question his integrity. So should you!

I don't want to get bogged down in philosophy here, Norbert.  You think what you think.  Again, however, that has nothing to do with the data and analysis I talked about in this post.  EVALUATING individuals relative to their pronouncements is a whole other thing entirely.  Since you brought up the whole astrologer analogy, please allow me to point out that a whole LOT of the science of astronomy developed from the DATA recorded by ASTROLOGERS.  So while you (and I) may have our reservations about their credibility, the contribution of their collected DATA has been notable.  Is the data less valuable/useful because we don't happen to agree with the collectors and their thinking?  Do their timely predictions have any impact on the worth of the data?

The collection of astronomical data is obviously worthwhile. The problem arises when this data is used to make unverifiable predictions.


Agree. since I did none of those things, nor included anything like that in my op, I'm still unsure as to what you're concerned about.  And in your comment above, please note that you are agreeing with me, that there is data (which is what I talked about), there is the interpretation of that data (not mentioned), and that SHOULD lead to verifiable predictions (again, not mentioned).  The data itself has no attributes in and of itself.  It is neither right nor wrong.  It is simply data.  When man gets involved: evaluation, conclusions; THAT is where things can go wrong.  You're focused on the PERSON and whether or not you find him trustworthy.  I choose to focus on the data; no value judgements necessary.  Unless your claim is that the data has been falsified?

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Contributor ○○○

Re: Analysis - My thoughts and thanks


@FatKat wrote:

I doubt @racqueteer is the least bit obtuse. It seems the original post was only his consensus opinion about how other members interact, and may provide insights into investing. 

This constant criticism of FD, I really don't understand? [...]  No one has to attend to his posts.

 


"I really don't understand" it either, @FatKat.

It's almost turned into a personal vendetta against FD that a few well known posters seem to have a very difficult time letting go of and moving on. Like a dog not letting go of a bone. 

A number of excellent posters have left this forum because of the excessive personal conflicts that seem to flourish here and the voluminous off-topic conversations that detract from the topic of investments and making money that I, perhaps mistakenly, thought was the main purpose of this discussion forum. 

And, FD has made me good money. Buying shares of ANBEX, for example, a fund he first brought to my attention, has increased my portfolio value by over $20,000. None of his detractors have his excellent record of researching and analyzing funds that have repeatedly benefited my portfolio's bottom line. 

Do they also want to chase FD away from this forum? They may not know it, but I find their obsession with FD extremely tiresome. I would respect them more if they used their varied talents to dig into the weeds and contributed more to the financial/investment side of this forum. Enough said.

Fred

Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Analysis - My thoughts and thanks


@VA-Tech wrote:

Racq .... perhaps you really are not understanding the subject or ramifications of the issue of which norbertc speaks, else you are being deliberately obtuse. Bottom line: perpetual outlandish claims require extraordinary proof, especially when they fly in the face of convention and statistical reasonableness. A lack of transparency for outlandish claims should certainly cast SERIOUS doubt on the claim itself as well as the character of the individual themselves.

The point continues to be that we're talking about two entirely different things here.  On the one hand, we have data tables provided by FD and DT.  I praised them for sharing those with us, and for volunteering their methodology for evaluating the worth of that data.  None of that requires me to make any kind of leap of faith or to exercise any 'belief' in the individuals involved.  Data is data.  Their 'process' is what it is.  Do I agree with their methodology?  A different question.  Do I take issue with their conclusions?  Yet a different question.  Might I elect to do something differently?  Still ANOTHER question.  Do I believe they did what they say they did at such and such a time and in such and such a way?  How would I know that?  Why do I care?  Does it have ANY impact on the data they provided?

I understand your points of view, but they literally have nothing to do with my post.  You guys are wound up about disbelieving FD's statements of his accomplishments.  Ok... That doesn't mean I have to be.  It certainly doesn't have anything to do with what I posted.  Finally, and frankly, you have zero actual irrefutable evidence to support YOUR positions!  You THINK you're right; you find his statements unlikely to be true, but you can't PROVE they're false any more than he can prove them true.  I-DON'T-CARE how anyone else claims to be doing.  I care about the data they present and the process they're using to evaluate that data.

Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Analysis - My thoughts and thanks

Fred,

Sorry, but I think we've lost a lot of strong contributors because of the prolific posting habits of certain individuals who shall not be named. We see things differently. But, if you're satisfied, that's definitely a good thing. 

Racq,

Let's end the exchange. It's obviously pointless. 

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Analysis - My thoughts and thanks


@norbertc wrote:

 

Racq,

Let's end the exchange. It's obviously pointless. 


That's fine, it was a worthwhile conversation to have.  I DO understand where you're coming from, Norbert; I hope you understand my pov as well...

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Analysis - My thoughts and thanks


@racqueteer wrote:

@VA-Tech wrote:

Racq .... perhaps you really are not understanding the subject or ramifications of the issue of which norbertc speaks, else you are being deliberately obtuse. Bottom line: perpetual outlandish claims require extraordinary proof, especially when they fly in the face of convention and statistical reasonableness. A lack of transparency for outlandish claims should certainly cast SERIOUS doubt on the claim itself as well as the character of the individual themselves.

The point continues to be that we're talking about two entirely different things here.  On the one hand, we have data tables provided by FD and DT.  I praised them for sharing those with us, and for volunteering their methodology for evaluating the worth of that data.  None of that requires me to make any kind of leap of faith or to exercise any 'belief' in the individuals involved.  Data is data.  Their 'process' is what it is.  Do I agree with their methodology?  A different question.  Do I take issue with their conclusions?  Yet a different question.  Might I elect to do something differently?  Still ANOTHER question.  Do I believe they did what they say they did at such and such a time and in such and such a way?  How would I know that?  Why do I care?  Does it have ANY impact on the data they provided?

I understand your points of view, but they literally have nothing to do with my post.  You guys are wound up about disbelieving FD's statements of his accomplishments.  Ok... That doesn't mean I have to be.  It certainly doesn't have anything to do with what I posted.  Finally, and frankly, you have zero actual irrefutable evidence to support YOUR positions!  You THINK you're right; you find his statements unlikely to be true, but you can't PROVE they're false any more than he can prove them true.  I-DON'T-CARE how anyone else claims to be doing.  I care about the data they present and the process they're using to evaluate that data.


You completely misunderstood @VA-Tech 's argument. I'm starting to worry about you. Are you OK? I'm serious. That's more important than the stuff we're debating.

My dad suffered an injury similar to yours. That's why I ask. Probably better done privately, but ...

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Analysis - My thoughts and thanks


@racqueteer wrote:

@norbertc wrote:

 

Racq,

Let's end the exchange. It's obviously pointless. 


That's fine, it was a worthwhile conversation to have.  I DO understand where you're coming from, Norbert; I hope you understand my pov as well...


You're not demonstrating any understanding whatsoever. That concerns me.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Contributor ○○○

Re: Analysis - My thoughts and thanks


@norbertc wrote:

Fred,

Sorry, but I think we've lost a lot of strong contributors because of the prolific posting habits of certain individuals who shall not be named. We see things differently. But, if you're satisfied, that's definitely a good thing. 

 

Well, Norbert, as I tried to point out, I am certainly not satisfied by the tiresome and seemingly never ending "prolific posting habits of certain individuals" that seem to be obsessed attacking another poster with nasty personal comments. And, lets not beat around the bush, aren't you really just talking about FD?

Sorry, but we definitely "see things differently". I am in agreement with Racq's quite lucid and rational statement that "I-DON'T-CARE how anyone else claims to be doing. I care about the data they present and the process they're using to evaluate that data".

Fred  

Highlighted
Explorer ○○

Re: Analysis - My thoughts and thanks

 Kudos to norbertc and Va-Tech.  As you say, it is about personal integrity and honesty.  I noticed the poster in question has also taken his act over to the MFO forum.  They seem to be a bit wiser to his incessant bragging and bravado.  An incessant braggart is a red flag in and of itself.  Not sure what his agenda is.

Announcements