I wouldn’t say I’m defending Mr. Gin or that I’m some sort of fan because I’m not. I’ve made comments about his comments and his connections here on this forum before.

All I was doing was pointing out the distinction between what amount to opinions and the facts he’s quoting to support them. I happen to think the phrase “liar” is pretty strong for the type of advocacy he’s pursuing. It’s just like when we casually bandy about comments about the market having already declined 10% and 15%. A bull would have no problems finding statistics to contradict that claim – would that entitle them to call the people expressing that opinion “liars”? Of course not.

This all goes back to that civility thing I always whine about. This isn’t a political campaign where the ends justify the means. We’re not here to convert the world to the one true religion upon pain of death. We’re here because we’re trying to figure this out and we’re trying to find the optimum path for ourselves. Toward that end we seek information. I’d like to think we are a question in search of an answer, not a conclusion in search of validation.

If we want to have a serious discussion and solicit information from a wide range of sources it’s not helpful to get into the habit of mistaking the individual for the message. If we’re bugged about the comments we should address those comments and the facts in support for or against them directly.

I don’t agree with the guy, but I’m smart enough to recognize that I don’t know as much as I’d like to know and there is a possibility that he has a couple pearls of information that I might be able to use to my benefit. If I keep an open mind he might accidentally drop one of those pearls in front of me. If I totally blow him off I would miss that opportunity.

I believe that it is possible to have a disagreement with someone without taking it personally or making it personal. I don’t always make it but I always try.