[Rich Toscano]

[quote=junglebeat]I would like it if I were able enable a setting to exclude OT forum items from the active topic list so that I just do not see them at all – problem solved.

Any way to do that Rich?[/quote]

Nope, it doesn’t work that way… all forum categories show up in the active forum topics list and that is not configurable.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=junglebeat]I would like it if I were able enable a setting to exclude OT forum items from the active topic list so that I just do not see them at all – problem solved.

Any way to do that Rich?[/quote]

Nope, it doesn’t work that way… all forum categories show up in the active forum topics list and that is not configurable.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=junglebeat]I would like it if I were able enable a setting to exclude OT forum items from the active topic list so that I just do not see them at all – problem solved.

Any way to do that Rich?[/quote]

Nope, it doesn’t work that way… all forum categories show up in the active forum topics list and that is not configurable.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=junglebeat]I would like it if I were able enable a setting to exclude OT forum items from the active topic list so that I just do not see them at all – problem solved.

Any way to do that Rich?[/quote]

Nope, it doesn’t work that way… all forum categories show up in the active forum topics list and that is not configurable.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

patb, I agree with you that these posts are lame and I am also pretty continually baffled as to why people want to get into political debates on this site when there are millions of sites solely devoted to that purpose.

However, it’s just not feasible for me to start tossing people because their posts are unpopular or off topic. There is after all an off topic forum, and that’s there because people have expressed to me that they like to discuss OT stuff sometimes. The amount of action that the OT forum gets is proof to some degree that people like having it.

If there is an off topic forum, I can’t go in and arbitrarily start bouncing people because they are “too” off topic. Those kind of constant interventions are precisely what I am trying to avoid because I just don’t have time to moderate the forum.

Now, I would actually get rid of the entire concept of the OT forum and make a house rule that posts should be topical, but only if a large majority of users wanted it that way. It has to be a large majority because the fact is that if you don’t like the OT stuff, you don’t have to read it. (FWIW I habitually ignore these political flamewar threads and many other OT threads as well).

So to sum up, the real question comes down to whether this is a housing-only forum or not. If you want to start a thread or poll on that debate, be my guest, and I am happy to conform to the will of the piggs. But it’s got to be either one of the two — off topic allowed or off topic prohibited — it’s really not feasible to enforce a middle ground. Thanks for your understanding.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

patb, I agree with you that these posts are lame and I am also pretty continually baffled as to why people want to get into political debates on this site when there are millions of sites solely devoted to that purpose.

However, it’s just not feasible for me to start tossing people because their posts are unpopular or off topic. There is after all an off topic forum, and that’s there because people have expressed to me that they like to discuss OT stuff sometimes. The amount of action that the OT forum gets is proof to some degree that people like having it.

If there is an off topic forum, I can’t go in and arbitrarily start bouncing people because they are “too” off topic. Those kind of constant interventions are precisely what I am trying to avoid because I just don’t have time to moderate the forum.

Now, I would actually get rid of the entire concept of the OT forum and make a house rule that posts should be topical, but only if a large majority of users wanted it that way. It has to be a large majority because the fact is that if you don’t like the OT stuff, you don’t have to read it. (FWIW I habitually ignore these political flamewar threads and many other OT threads as well).

So to sum up, the real question comes down to whether this is a housing-only forum or not. If you want to start a thread or poll on that debate, be my guest, and I am happy to conform to the will of the piggs. But it’s got to be either one of the two — off topic allowed or off topic prohibited — it’s really not feasible to enforce a middle ground. Thanks for your understanding.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

patb, I agree with you that these posts are lame and I am also pretty continually baffled as to why people want to get into political debates on this site when there are millions of sites solely devoted to that purpose.

However, it’s just not feasible for me to start tossing people because their posts are unpopular or off topic. There is after all an off topic forum, and that’s there because people have expressed to me that they like to discuss OT stuff sometimes. The amount of action that the OT forum gets is proof to some degree that people like having it.

If there is an off topic forum, I can’t go in and arbitrarily start bouncing people because they are “too” off topic. Those kind of constant interventions are precisely what I am trying to avoid because I just don’t have time to moderate the forum.

Now, I would actually get rid of the entire concept of the OT forum and make a house rule that posts should be topical, but only if a large majority of users wanted it that way. It has to be a large majority because the fact is that if you don’t like the OT stuff, you don’t have to read it. (FWIW I habitually ignore these political flamewar threads and many other OT threads as well).

So to sum up, the real question comes down to whether this is a housing-only forum or not. If you want to start a thread or poll on that debate, be my guest, and I am happy to conform to the will of the piggs. But it’s got to be either one of the two — off topic allowed or off topic prohibited — it’s really not feasible to enforce a middle ground. Thanks for your understanding.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

patb, I agree with you that these posts are lame and I am also pretty continually baffled as to why people want to get into political debates on this site when there are millions of sites solely devoted to that purpose.

However, it’s just not feasible for me to start tossing people because their posts are unpopular or off topic. There is after all an off topic forum, and that’s there because people have expressed to me that they like to discuss OT stuff sometimes. The amount of action that the OT forum gets is proof to some degree that people like having it.

If there is an off topic forum, I can’t go in and arbitrarily start bouncing people because they are “too” off topic. Those kind of constant interventions are precisely what I am trying to avoid because I just don’t have time to moderate the forum.

Now, I would actually get rid of the entire concept of the OT forum and make a house rule that posts should be topical, but only if a large majority of users wanted it that way. It has to be a large majority because the fact is that if you don’t like the OT stuff, you don’t have to read it. (FWIW I habitually ignore these political flamewar threads and many other OT threads as well).

So to sum up, the real question comes down to whether this is a housing-only forum or not. If you want to start a thread or poll on that debate, be my guest, and I am happy to conform to the will of the piggs. But it’s got to be either one of the two — off topic allowed or off topic prohibited — it’s really not feasible to enforce a middle ground. Thanks for your understanding.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

patb, I agree with you that these posts are lame and I am also pretty continually baffled as to why people want to get into political debates on this site when there are millions of sites solely devoted to that purpose.

However, it’s just not feasible for me to start tossing people because their posts are unpopular or off topic. There is after all an off topic forum, and that’s there because people have expressed to me that they like to discuss OT stuff sometimes. The amount of action that the OT forum gets is proof to some degree that people like having it.

If there is an off topic forum, I can’t go in and arbitrarily start bouncing people because they are “too” off topic. Those kind of constant interventions are precisely what I am trying to avoid because I just don’t have time to moderate the forum.

Now, I would actually get rid of the entire concept of the OT forum and make a house rule that posts should be topical, but only if a large majority of users wanted it that way. It has to be a large majority because the fact is that if you don’t like the OT stuff, you don’t have to read it. (FWIW I habitually ignore these political flamewar threads and many other OT threads as well).

So to sum up, the real question comes down to whether this is a housing-only forum or not. If you want to start a thread or poll on that debate, be my guest, and I am happy to conform to the will of the piggs. But it’s got to be either one of the two — off topic allowed or off topic prohibited — it’s really not feasible to enforce a middle ground. Thanks for your understanding.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

That’s cool… I apologize for the brusqueness of my initial reply. Re. the initial question I would want to have a much more in depth discussion with someone before recommending on a specific situation, so I will take a pass on that one…

Thanks,
Rich

[Rich Toscano]

That’s cool… I apologize for the brusqueness of my initial reply. Re. the initial question I would want to have a much more in depth discussion with someone before recommending on a specific situation, so I will take a pass on that one…

Thanks,
Rich

[Rich Toscano]

That’s cool… I apologize for the brusqueness of my initial reply. Re. the initial question I would want to have a much more in depth discussion with someone before recommending on a specific situation, so I will take a pass on that one…

Thanks,
Rich

[Rich Toscano]

That’s cool… I apologize for the brusqueness of my initial reply. Re. the initial question I would want to have a much more in depth discussion with someone before recommending on a specific situation, so I will take a pass on that one…

Thanks,
Rich

[Rich Toscano]

That’s cool… I apologize for the brusqueness of my initial reply. Re. the initial question I would want to have a much more in depth discussion with someone before recommending on a specific situation, so I will take a pass on that one…

Thanks,
Rich

[Rich Toscano]

I wrote the article you refer to.

[quote=vkailas]The go on to say we are currently very safely in an expensive valuation so you probably should not invest considering that only rarely when in a expensive valuation do investors get good returns. [/quote]

That’s not what the article says at all… that fact that you come away with that conclusion indicates that you didn’t read it very carefully. (Further proof is found below).

[quote=vkailas]These kind of articles or common in a down market.[/quote]

If you view the articles page on the pca site, you will see that we were putting up bearish articles in early 2007 well before the market peaked. So your implicit accusation that we wait until a down market to put up such articles is incorrect.

[quote=vkailas]Trying to scare investors even more.[/quote]

We truly believe that the market is overvalued, we invest accordingly, and we try to educate people as such. The accusation that we are trying to scare people (with the implication that we don’t even believe what we are writing) is very insulting.

[quote=vkailas]The article however glances over the fact that their valuation is an average of the past 10 years of earnings. And while it’s historically rare to have good returns in markets with similar average valuations over the past 10 years, the tech bubble we experienced is also rare with astronomical valuations that made no sense and lower earnings that other past booms. Using an average of all these lower earnings over the past 10 years leads to a average expensive valuation. [/quote]

The valuation is based on the past 10 years’ earnings, not on the past 10 years’ valuations, so the above is incorrect.

Rich

[Author]

Posts