Stock Market
 

So, is it going to crash?

No, I don't think so. There are plenty of folks around who are able to take advantage of the situation, when the time is right for them.

The billions that seem to be evaporating never really never existed, except on paper. Unsound investments in mortgages, based on the real estate bubble everyone knew would burst sooner or later, by fund managers playing with other peoples money, then walk away with a "sorry, not my fault" and a personal fortune.

Wow, I thought it was just a bullshit claim of a crash in 2007. But I guess this isn't nearly as severe as they predicted but hopefully nothing bad happens.

*knocks on wood*

No -- it's just a correction -- just a bit more correct than was anticipated. It will eventually wind down and represent a huge buying opportunity.

No it will not crash. And hopefully the correction will allow me to purchase many more shares at a lower price.

B-b-but I thought there was no bubble and that prices can only continue to go up! "Buy now, or be priced out forever!" "Buy land, they've stopped making it!" How could anyone have predicted that this wouldn't last? :rolleyes:

Your right Kitsune, it's so unfair. We must bail these speculators out, after all, think of the children.

_

I don't think it's going to crash in the next few days, but I think we're headed for a world wide recession and a lot of 'middle class' people are going to be severely affected.

I believe that it's not going to "crash" but that it will effect people in large enough numbers that it will be seen as significant.

The value of the dollar is down and trending down, debt is going up and up. It seems to me that there is change in the near future.

Change that wont be seen as good news for most Americans.

Corrections happen. This will be but one of many. The central banks of many nations are kicking in money to help ease the pain by giving some liquidity to the guys who walked too close to the line. I just hope they don't go overboard and throw in too much. High, high risk investors (the fund guys) need to get a grip on reality and see that they must be responsible for the choices they are making with my money. I don't want it to tank, but some loss is normal and any investor must be willing to take the good with the bad. Like Merc stated, it will just give most of us the ability to pick up some good deals. There will be many unrelated stocks with values brought down by this correction. They will be the ones to watch and snatch up.

This is not going to affect just investors. This is going to affect your average joe who's just trying to pay off his or her mortgage. So many people are up to their eyeballs in debt and a rise of just a couple more percent is going to push a huge percentage of them over into the foreclosure market.

I'd lay money on it.

Only because the were stupid enough to buy more house than they could afford. If they had bought what they could pay for they wouldn't have had to buy into risky mortgage schemes.

Of course that's true Bruce. I think we all know people who've mortgaged themselves way higher than they should have, and there are some very attractive mortgages out there but when you do your homework you realise the whole scheme is a house of cards (almost literally).

The problem is that those mortgage companies are financed by major banks who're going to feel the pinch when the direct mortgager folds because their credit ridden clients can't pay their bills.

This in turn is going to push interest rates up for more stable borrowers who will then not have the money to invest in other items which is what drives the economy.

I predict that the knock on or trickle up effect will be a lot higher than some of our other members here seem to think.

What makes me nervous is when so many say this is only a correction. Well even a stock market crash is a correction.

For example, Citibank apparently made massive bets and is now exposed for a problem that amounts to $billions. Many hedge funds have been bailed out quietly on the order of many $billions by their holding companies that were once considered 'protected' by financial circuit breakers. Even Goldman Sachs is taking a beating.

Meanwhile, dollars are in massive amounts overseas. No one is quite sure how large those numbers really are. Those dollars are held in assets such as bonds. What is this problem mostly appearing in? Bond markets. What happened if those other nations decide to cut their losses due to a sharply failing dollar - start selling bonds which are financing the American government at about $2 or $3billion per day? Does that number open any eyes? Who has the most American bonds? China - on the order estimated in the $trillions. Remember an earlier post - the actualy amount of currency in all demoninations throughout the world is about $5.7 trillion.

Already central banks have been spending untold $billions trying to maintain liquidity. Capital assets once used as collateral for so many speculative loans is suddenly becoming worth far less than original market value estimates.

Appreciate the problem facing the Federal Reserve. Inflation is threatening. Therefore interest rates must remain same or increase. But the liquidity crunch means the Fed must lower interest rates. A nation that was using finance games to keep the housing and auto markets going (because other market sectors were not doing as well) means the Fed has lost significant manuevering room.

No, I don't believe we are in for a major crash. But when more people say this is not a problem then a worse downturn results. The problem: nobody really knows how much 'rot' is out there in the finance markets. Hedge funds and other risk diversification tools really have unknown value when things get this uncertain. Nobody is really admitting it. But the amount of bailouts appears to be much more massive than is really being reported. A problem that will not appear in corporate balance sheets typically more like for four years later.

Stock market crash was 1929. When did the resulting recession occur? More like 1933/4.

That seems almost certain in my mind. We are all fuct until Hillary rides into office to change everything for the better.

What changes would you make to improve the US economy if you had the power to do so?

What events and policies would you un-do if you had the opportunity to go back in time?

HA!

Hmmm... we're in a bad place because of easy credit, so we'll fix it by making more money available. Got it, as you were.

Is it going to crash? That depends on your definition of crash. If you mean people running around making foolish decisions in a panic while watching well known entertainers (who do more entertaining than legitimate financial advising) scream and yell that the sky is falling and they will need to burn their houses down to get their money out...

Yep, we are already there.

If you mean a catastrophic downturn that leads to widescale corporate bankruptcies, bread lines around the block, and a massive flow of newly homeless people asking you for change... Probably not.

A lot of folks bought houses they shouldn't have. Did mortgage brokers assist them in their stupidity? Yep. Were some of the mortgage brokers participating in illegal activities to generate approvals? Yep, a few of them. Is it all just a big scam pulled on unwitting victims? No. Scratch that - HELL NO. If a person could look around and see that rates were at historic lows and they were stretching themselves thin to fit into the biggest ARM payment they could handle, well, maybe they deserve to be taught a very painful lesson. Markets have a very effective way of returning to averages and people never seem to learn. Most of the folks I meet who are seriously pinched because of the rates are the exact same folks who were screaming about the "unexpected" collapse of the tech boom a few years back. Get over it. A fool and his money... you know the rest.

The mortgage problems are big. They'll probably get bigger. We don't have widescale foreclosures ripping the economy apart. We have lenders who made bad decisions and are now sitting outside the risk exposure model that their business plan is built on. In a knee jerk reaction they've decided the response is to not lend. Oops. Now they don't have current fees coming in to generate revenue to keep investors happy. They will look at their books and realize that even though foreclosures are up, it still makes a very small portion of their portfolio, so they will open up loan programs slowly, allowing things to smooth out. It will not be overnight, but it will happen.

Yesterday we actually touched on the official definition of a "market correction", (a drop of 10% or more) but didn't close below that level. We are due. I have been telling everyone for a year to adjust portfolios for the rainy day in the future. It is all about your asset allocation. Those with good allocations didn't sustain large losses when the tech bubble collapsed because they understood the value of diversification. Those same people will ride this out as well. The loss from a missed opportunity is much less expensive than the loss of reaching too far.

One other thing. Turn off the news. These idiot talking heads only report that "The Dow tumbled 140 points today..." They don't explain that the Dow only represents 30 companies or that more importantly that a 140 drop(or rise) today is as insignificant today as a 20 point move fifteen years ago. Talk percentages, not points.

I'm watchful, but not panicky. I'm actually seeing some fantastic values out there too. And remember folks, Bulls make money, Bears make money, Pigs get slaughtered.

It's a scary thought, yes I know.

I think we are on a bit of a knife-edge right now. It's a strange situation the like of which I've not witnessed before myself - and I've seen and been in a few recessions (and booms).

I was kind of expecting the fuel hikes we've seen to push the economy downwards for quite some time. The availability of growing markets in India, China and the Far East generally seemed to be able to counter that threat, but as we begin to appreciate the cost associated with these markets' growth (slave labour, pollution, contamination in products and so on) we may see a correction there as we address these issues. This will remove the cushioning effect that these markets have provided. That aside the governments and markets generally are well -prepared (i.e. bank-rolled) to try to stave off any crisis - I guess for them it seems the lesser of two evil decisions - spend to stop a mess or lose (probably) more by letting it run unabated.

Well, that's the idea, anyway, but the trouble with this approach in the past has been that the fundamentals have won every time, and trying to buck these has only resulted in a massive loss/waste of revenue as the recession has still come and it has been deeper as a result of the attempts to delay its arrival.

Certainly, I feel that a correction is due - larger than we've seen so far - and I can't help also feeling that it would be better to take the hit as it comes, as this will undoubtedly cause less pain than that resulting from what has always been a futile fight attempting to delay the day.

It'll be interesting to see how durable the Fed's half-percent interest rate cut is as a solution. There's a lot more bad news to come, I reckon...

The 50 Bps was window dressing for the psyche. A large correction is coming. It has been coming since opening day of the bull market, that's how it works. Whether it comes today, tomorrow or 2009, no one really knows. Economists and market timers have predicted 11 out of the last 9 bear markets and their track record speaks for itself. Buy quality companies based on solid fundamentals. Hold them until there is a fundamental reason not to. Only buy companies that fit within your predetermined asset allocation model and do not veer to the right or left of this regardless of what you hear on the tv or radio.

This could be the beginning of the recession, or not. Just remember that the last recession only lasted 8 months and there are still doomsdayers waiting for that one to end so they can invest again. Seriously, I meet them all the time. They've been sitting on the sidelines since 2002. (notice that they sold at the bottom and missed the last 5 years of gains)

But unless you are retiring and drawing income from your investments in the very near term, relax. There are only two options:
A) This is just like every other time in the market history, it will go down then come back to set new highs, or B) This time it really is different and the market will fall to 0. If that happens so what? Now you are on a level playing field with Bill Gates - neither of your bank accounts are worth anything.:eyebrow:

Say what?

Just my way of saying that if there were a recession every time the economists were united in believing it was at our doorstep we wouldn't have gone 4.5 years without one. Many many economists are permabears because they live in theoretical worlds surrounded by mountains of negative data. To be fair there are also many permabulls that see everything as proof of the boom we are just entering. Market timers are also notorious. Come to think of it - anyone who claims to be predicting the future of anything usually is wrong just as often as they are right. Crystal balls get foggy and all that jazz.

You can live and invest based on A) predictions, or B) principles (processes). I know what I choose, but everyone has to make that decision for themselves.

Schools of thought...

I've been saying it and saying it: for the last 4 years, the mainstream media's economics story is consistently the same: "The economy is secretly bad."

It's like they wrote it with the same outline: The GDP had another quarter of excellent growth. But there are impending signs of disaster.

Every story has had its but.

The major indicies said things were great. So they focused first on the market. When the market boomed, they focused on slow job creation. When the jobs came back, they focused on inequality. When inequality improved, they focused on bad loans.

Now that it's time for the next recession - the inevitable business cycle - they write that it is a "perfect storm". "If people stop spending money we will go into a recession." Durr. Durrrr.

If the AP wrote a weather story it would be "Climate scientists tell us that it's sunny out now, but if a storm comes tomorrow, water will fall from the sky. Water is a major cause of drowning and rots untreated wood." Their economics stories are literally that dumb.

People have this mistaken idea that the media is still full of journalists who feel compelled to find and report the truth of the world around us, because "people have the right to know".

Turn on your tv and look for a homely broadcaster. Not going to happen. As long as they look good and can read the teleprompter, they're in. Sometimes they don't have to be that good at reading.

Turn on the radio and listen for someone who reports the news of the day in an unbiased, truthful, informative way. Not going to happen. Entertainment rules the airwaves.

The fact of the matter is the media exists for one reason: profit. The way they profit is by selling commercial space. The way they sell commercial space is by gaining and maintaining market share in listeners and viewers. There are only two ways they can get you to tune in daily, 1) Excite you, 2) Scare you. No one would tune into a channel that started their broadcast with, "Today the world was pretty much as it has always been. Some people made money, some people lost money, some people died, and some were born. Here are today's events..." So they have to excite or scare. They aren't creative enough to come up with compelling, positive stories that are also exciting, but they have scaring the public down to a science.
Take the lead paint story as an example. I've been following that one pretty closely so I know which toys are involved. But they got my attention last night with their teaser talking about the dangers found in "some of these toys your children may be playing with right now. Tune in for the details after the break." They showed a woman holding two toys that my son has that I was certain weren't included in the concerns. But they kept my attention for 30 freakin' minutes only to finally report that "toys are dangerous! The chinese are malicious! these toys we've been showing in our teasers are perfectly safe! But what if they weren't?!?" It is exactly what I figured but they still got me to keep their broadcast on.

They do the same thing with financial reports. I have a couple of media types as clients. I can promise you that they know nothing about money or investments, but they sound very convincing when they are expounding on the dangers of rising oil prices and the impending collapse of our economy. I literally saw one "journalist" gravely report that the economy was in danger of spinning out of control because oil went up that day. The very next day oil went down and this very same journalist reported how falling oil prices could lead to broadbased dangers for investors. HUH? Which is it,oh wise one?

The best thing you can do is turn off your tv. If you invest interview and hire an advisor based on his plan for downside money management. It isn't how much you make, it's how much you keep and volatile markets are where an advisor earns his money, or gives you reason to fire him.

I tend to agree with your views on generalised news coverage - although it's not that bad over here. The major players are the ones who move the markets, buy and sell our pension investments and so on and they rely on the likes of Reuters and Bloomberg for the news they need as part of their decision-making process. Added to this they have sophisticated models to refer to and the hype of the general media is of litte concern.

We, the individuals who see our money go into the institutions, have little control over how the main players react, and the worst we can do is make decisions based on the generl media's extremely (in terms of the way markets work) historic information - by the time they tell us, it's too late.

There's an interesting article in today's Sunday Times Money section which shows the tools available to the likes of Morgan Stanley - not sure I undertood it all, but it shows how much details goes into their decision-making

The major players do not rely on news services for their tactical decisions, they have their own analysts and use a "use a boots on the ground" method. They send their own people to the companies to review processes, products, and prospects.
Individuals watch the news and make decisions. Those individuals may not mean much with their individual trades but remember "an avalanche starts with just one flake". Individuals are usually in mutual funds. If enough individuals get nervous and put sell orders in the mutual fund manager has to sell his positions to cover the client redemptions. Sometimes this means the fund looks to be losing when in reality it is in a great long term position. But then 10,000 other individuals get nervous and sell.... <insert painful cycle here>

That is where the problems start. Most stock analysts don't come from where the work gets done. They know all about investing in nuclear power and yet don't even know how a nuclear chain reaction works? That is the problem. Even worse, they take insist they need not understand such things.

One girlfriend as a bank VP heard rumors about a chicken farm disease. So she visited the clients - major chicken producers. All those chickens could have been sick and she would have never known it. She was an expert on this industry only because she could read spreadsheets.

Therein lays so much fear and wild speculation. We don't listen to stock commentators to know what industry is doing. We listen to them to learn how the street is feeling and guessing and rumor mongering.

How to make money on the street. Know the difference between reality and fear so often promoted by stock market bean counters.

The sub-prime fallout has created massive problems in some financial institutions. However, others saw this obvious problem long ago and bet accordingly. Whereas even Goldman Sachs is caught bailing out their bad investments, a few hedge funds are rumored to have made $billions by seeing the obvious.

We discussed here a serious problem in the housing market. An economy in recession if not for low interest rates that were maintaining strong housing sales and strong auto sales. Is that a healthy economy - or curing symptoms by throwing money at it? If other more productive parts of that economy start doing better, then low interest rates were a solution. In the past four years, without low interest rates, then this economy was not doing well. Those low interest rates can create economic activity which is confused with growth. An economy can have massive economic activity and near zero growth. Welcome to the early 1970s. Even with money games from easy money, economic growth had still fallen to about 60%.

Are stock brokers in panic mode? Good. Time to buy. We listen to bean counters because they have little idea what makes companies prosper. When they panic for reasons financial, then this is good time to return to the market. Only rarely do we listen to market analysts to know how productive or stable a company is. By the time the spread sheets finally report it, those realities have existed for years.

Now for caution. Market analysts like to panic in October. October with so many panicked market analysts tends to imply a stock market meltdown.

Did the stock market crash of 1928 create the recession? No. Those problems existed long ago - masked by easy money. If we are in a recession, then market analysts are only just beginning to suspect it - which makes October so dangerous.

How long ago were we talking about the housing market crash? What was known in reality finally appeared in the market how many years later? These are the people with "boots on the ground" who could not see this problem how many years ago?

Why do stock brokers underperform the market? They have 'boots on the ground' but forget to have what is necessary behind the eyes - knowledge of how the work gets done. This liquidity crisis did not just suddenly appear. It has been ongoing for years right in front of those so many 'boots on the ground' who still did not see. Why the panic? Because market analysts did not see for years what should have been obvious to every one of them. Instead they kept pointing to economic indictors (that measure things four and more years ago) to prove everything is just fine.

We listen to market analysts to learn about their emotions – because so many bean counter types have little grasp of what is really happening. But again, stock broker performance tends to underperform the market. Listen to learn their emotions because their emotions determine prices. Some are so foolish as to think they are experts on an industry.

I'll respond to that in two ways:

1) Who is this "we" you keep referring to? Are the voices getting to you again? (I'm actually just teasing, I'd be disappointed if you had broken form and hadn't posted this)

2) Who says stock brokers, financial advisors, financial planners, shiny shoe whores, (pick your favored term) underperform the market? I challenged you a few years ago to post your portfolio performance against my recommendations in real time, changes made as needed to test your theories. You have never even responded, let alone accept the challenge.

The we is layman. We watch what so many market analysts say. To say ignore them is it lose a valuable source of information as well as take some of the fun out of it.

For example, important in what each of 'they' say are the reasons why. The 'whys' can quickly identify those who know only by playing numbers games from those who know by acutally understanding the a company is doing.

Same applies to finaniclal markets. Many appear to be taking significant losses verses a smaller number who saw this problem many years ago and hedged appropriately.

Meanwhile, numbers repeatedly reported from various sources noted how stock brokers underperform the market by about 1%. A summation of mutual funds (that are not indexed) also demonstrates the problem. Mutual funds tend to underperform the market by about 1% - sometimes 2%.

Recommending one to ignore the analysts is good if the investor blindly hands his money to others for investment. Becoming a good investor is not hard as long as one limits to industries that he understands. As Peter Lynch noted, the private investor with about 5 stocks can often outperform the market. But that means knowing the company, understanding its industry, and keeping an eye on those market analysts who can subvert or upend the market with their fears.

Applying to current situations - caution is advised. These market analysts have a history of misreading the numbers, promoting things as good (as they usually do) and then suddenly going into panic mode. This tends to occur in October but has lately occured in months earlier.

Having said that and if believing in an industry that is poised to get or stay on track, then one now would be watching some investments that should be very good buys in these next few months. But again, that means watching those market analysts so as to understand their and their peers emotions.

Investors in Google, Goldman Sachs, Toyota, and Citigroup have recently taken a beating. I believe each may have lost their entire profits for the year in but a month. The first three appear to be very solid companies. Could one take advantage of investments at fire sale prices?

Or invest in Cisco that is now at 150% of the price last September even after the sharp downturn? Or Intel that is now at 133% (did you notice how Intel started chewing into AMD)? Or Apple at 185% even after the downturn. Do we invest based upon these numbers? Both reasons are usually offered by those analysts. Neither are, by themselves, significant reasons for making a decision. But listening to those analysts who promote this reasoning should make it apparent whether he makes money on promotion - or actually understands the investement, its industry, and its products.

Listen to those market analysts. Sometimes they can draw attention to a gem. Use their emotion to understand the hype. Don't listen to them for what to do. Listen to them to, instead, understand the whys.

Now is a good time for making a decision if even only talking about 100 shares. I don't waste money on lottery tickets. 100 shares on the stock market is currently is far more fun than any lottery tickets. I don't like buying losers - such as lottery tickets. Second guessing market analysts is also part of the fun.

Right now is when it gets very fun.

tw, did you just use "fun" and "emotion" multiple times is the same thread? I must be sleep posting!

TW, I've said it before and I'll say it again. You have no idea what it is I (or other advisors) do for a living. You refer to numerous studies, but show me the actual numbers. Many mutual funds do under perform the market. Fewer underperform if actually compared to the appropriate benchmarks. That's the point. But many, MANY, outperform the market. Finding them is the trick. That is what I do. I match my clients up with the appropriate investments for their A) risk tolerance, B) time horizon, C) goals. When you take that into account, you'll realize that the benchmark isn't the end all, be all.

I've often stated that it is not necessary to have a financial advisor. One can successfully build their own retirement plan, they may also be capable of planning for the catastrophic needs that come up. A few can effectively assemble an efficient estate plan as well. Unfortunately, most individuals would be just as successful doing all of those things as I would be building a computer, writing a program, mounting a successful legal defense, performing surgery, or designing a revolutionary component for the space program. The point is that not everyone has the time, ability, or desire to learn what it is that I spend all day every day doing. Most of those people aren't concerned with making sure they get to brag about milking every last basis point out of the market at the next geeks-r-us meeting. Believe it or not, successful individuals don't begrudge me my fees because they've taken the time to learn what I do for them. I provide returns in line with the market in up times, I protect them in down times, I walk with them through both up and down times, and I do this all with less risk than the overall market.

But you can keep reading your white papers about my industry, and thinking you know it all. BTW, care to venture a guess as to who is bankrolling the studies you refer to? I'm sure they don't have an agenda. But I'm sure you thought of that.

Are you going to pull a Yesman? I don't know. I don't care. It's not relevant what you do. And it has zero relevance to the discussion in this thread. I have no idea why you are bragging. I have no idea why what you do is even worthy of posting. It is all irrelvant. But somehow you are wasting everyone's time with expressions based in ego.

Ego is not relevant. Whether you are hurt or not is not relevant. The topic is the stockmarket that has nothing to do with any one or anyone's image.

If you have facts relevant to the discussion, then post them. Don't just threaten to post information. Post it - or get off the pot.

tw - I have tried, in vain, to make peace with you - I have posted numerous times my thoughts, opinions and YES my feelings. All of this and you still attack me or act as though you are better than me - before you go off on your "no attack was made therefore it doesn't exist" bullshit. Lemme ask you "Pulling a yesman" what exactly does that mean???? I tried to treat you with consideration and attempted to make amends - YOU, tw, are an asshole in the first, second and third person. There is no reason for you to bring me up in this thread - I have not posted once nor given you any call to use me as a negative reference. You are too much of a pussy to even respond when I directly post to you and here you go like a little girl??? Fuck you and the go cart you road in on.

Er, except for post #34?

Quit taking it so personally, dude. Lots of people have no respect for lots of other people on this board. It's not the feud of the century you make it out to be.

What the hell are you talking about? You are such an amusing little man. You expound on the subject of the markets trying to wow us with your well of knowledge but anytime someone responds to your thoughts you can only respond with insults or condescension and then act like you've done no such thing.

Here's an idea. Step away from the keyboard and the encyclopedia. Walk out of your mother's basement and try joining the rest of humanity. You might just like it. You might also learn something. A good place to start would be with the idea that maybe you don't know everything.

Actually, he lives in a dingy apartment around the corner from you.

Well, if by that you mean astute and informed yet compassionate, then yes, i guess i'm pulling a yesman. :p

you are right clod - I posted once.

:biglaugha

For all we know, lookout123 could be the Einstein of finance. Completely irrelevant. What only matters here are the supporting whys for statments posted. Make claims and withhold the whys - then don't expect a post to have credibiity.

Lookout123, if you know so much about the stock market, then simply state those facts and and include numerous reasons 'why'. Posting emotional tells us you think you are smarter. I don't care if you are a genius. It is not relevant. Only relevant are the reasons why you obtain a conclusion. If your only reason 'why' is because you are a stock broker, then your post has zero credibility. That is no insult of stock brokes. Who you are is not relevant. Only the 'whys' are relevant.

So prove me wrong. Show me you can stay adult. Show us these insights you have into market analysts AND provide numerous supporting facts 'why'. Do it without a meltdown. I don't care about your emotional state. And I may just decide to feed on it because you cannot even state 'why' you are angry. Your emotion is not relevant to the topic. That you do not post reasons 'why' is very relevant.

I don't care who you are. You, the person, do not even exist here. Only existing here are your posts - that are currently shy of 'why'. Your posts only credibilty comes from posting those 'whys'. The source is not relevant. Why are you upset only because my conclusions are a completely different perspective from yours? If you are confident of your conclusions, then upset would instead be replaced with 'whys' and 'why nots'.

Okie dokie, Hal.

Dave Bowman: All right, HAL; I'll go in through the emergency airlock.
HAL: Without your space helmet, Dave, you're going to find that rather difficult.
Dave Bowman: HAL, I won't argue with you anymore! Open the doors!
HAL: Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye

I have no idea what those peace offerings are. Again you were not attacked. Why do you take insult again where none exists? If you cannot acknowledge your previous meltdown over mythical insults , then you will always view posted facts as personal attacks. You had a meltdown over something that did not exist. That was the reality.

Yesman065 viewed a school bus with a perspective. Then took insult when another contrasted his perspective with the bigger picture. Those are the facts. Get over it. You had a meltdown over insults that only existed in your head; that did not exist anywhere in the post. Are you going to meltdown again - or learn from assumed insults that did not exist? I have no idea what constitute peace offerings. You had a meltdown over a post that was only a constrast of perspectives. Those are the facts. Get over it.

HAL: Let me put it this way, Mr. Amor. The 9000 series is the most reliable computer ever made. No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error.

:yawn:

Let's have a contest to see who can use the word "meltdown" the most times in one post. Ready? Go!

Go take your medication tw - tw is totally irrational - yesman proved repeatedly what tw did and tw istoo small a man to admit it. What little credibility tw had here, evaporated with tw's inability to admit when tw was wrong - AGAIN. tw did it six months ago and tw just did it again.

Greatest bag on tw...ever.

It was nicely done.

I made no effort to solve any problem. I simply posted a link to which tw chose to attack me in post #8. Because I am a compassionate human.

I never said I was going to save anyone by worrying about them. It is NORMAL to be concerned with the welfare of others though, and to express that concern. tw constantly claims that he does not read into others posts or make assumptions about that which may have been implied, reading only the words one has written. Why would tw assume that anyone was trying to save a child when all I did was post a link to an article with absolutely no opinion posted. And yet again an example of how tw reads into others posts that which was not written - Why does tw constantly tend to read into statements things which do not exist. Please refer to the original post in this thread for IRONCLAD proof. Contrastly, tw feels compelled to criticize others if/when they appear to have done the same?

INCORRECT - I was not concerned with details at all. I VERY SIMPLY posted a link, nothing more nothing less. I had not intent at that time to solve any problems jump out the door and examine any bridges. tw seems to not be able to grasp this concept even though he has been repeatedly told. Why does tw continue to assume every post is about what HE thinks it is about instead of recognizing that other people post for their own reasons? All claims of superior thought through logical emotionless conclusions would not be made were it not for the underlying emotional need for said change or improvement to take place. One can only assume that posting dispassionately lets tw feel he is somehow greater or better or in some way superior. That tw's posts are intentionally devoid of any feeling has no bearing nor does it lend any credibility to his posts. This is a further example of how tw reads into posts that which is not there. Why tw? Why does tw see things that do not exist? What is it tw has accomplished by attacking yesman? Has tw accomplished anything since this bridge collapsed? has tw taken any action? Take notice - that information is conveniently lacking from tw's posts.

No, not really, the veil has been removed and the seething ridicule is now out in the open. For example see post # 8 where tw completely unprovoked in any way shape or form reads into a link that which does not exist and attacks yesman without any cause whatsoever. The demeaning TONE, yes there is a tone in the written word, which tw used was completely uncalled for. I made an offer to you for an end of your attacks and my counterattacks so that the cellar would not have to deal with this issue in ever thread where you choose to attack me. Furthermore, I created a thread specifically for tw to express his feelings, if any, attack me if tw wished or to reach a compromise. tw chose none of them - What we are left with is a "cesspool of wanker logic." {tm tw} The offer was apparently not simple enough for tw. tw could not even be man enough to respond to said offer in the appropriate place. Why is that? Why is it that tw is unable or unwilling to act accordingly when an offer for peace was made? Highly illogical for one who purports logical superiority.

yesman (now you have me referring to myself in the third person) - very strange indeed - will repeat himself again. It seems that tw must believe that if the same incorrect point is repeatedly stated enough times will somehow will it to validity. No it will not. A most serious illogical transgression. No matter how many times an incorrect assumption is repeated it shall forever remain incorrect. yesman posted a link - nothing more, nothing less. yesman had no intention whatsoever at that time to solve any problems nor examine any bridges. tw seems to not be able to grasp this concept even though he has been repeatedly told this. yesman made no effort to imply nor intended to determine a responsible course of action. That is another attempt by tw to make another erroneous claim completely unfounded and without basis. Why tw? Why does tw see things that do not exist?

yesman would like to take this opportunity to state that he was concerned about the traumatic events of that evening and would like to express his concern for the well being of the children on that school bus. Additionally, yesman would like to express his thankfulness to his God that they are all physically ok. Nothing more nothing less. There was never any attempt to examine any other bridges nor did yesman make any claims to have done so.
Those questions are not yesman's to ask. yesman is not in the field of engineering, however if yesman were to derive that information it would do yesman little good to know that information. Therefore that displays another illogical question derived on faulty logic which deserves no reply. How much time did tw spend to accrue that useless information? If that information becomes useful what is tw going to do with it? Has tw done anything constructive to address whatever situation tw has determined is in need? What tw, what would yesman or any other reader do with such information? Perhaps yesman could call his congressman and express his concern for the children in his area. Does yesman need that information to do that? yesman thinks not. In fact, yesman has already emailed and called his local representative to express his concerns about bridges in his area. Has tw done the same? Has tw taken any action? tw has offered no solutions, no ideas, in fact all tw has offered is long winded posts questioning others feelings and opinions. Hardly a prudent course of action. What tw, what logic was this course of action you have chosen based upon? tell us what tw has done to increase the safety of the children who ride school buses near tw. Perhaps tw is not concerned enough about the children in tw's area to take action himself? yesman does not know as tw has not offered any constructive information on the subject.

OMG - again? My fingers hurt from repeating myself ad nauseum - should you, at this point, still need and answer to these questions than you are beyond help.

In conclusion, yesman recognized a need and took the appropriate action (calling his representatives) whereas tw has simply chosen to attack other posters feelings and opinions - hardly logical nor constructive.

Why does tw find it necessary to attack others when no attack was initially made nor implied?

What Yesman065 calls an attack: Dude. Do you also get upset when someone looks at you wrong? Dude. Its not entertaining watching you make a fool of yourself. Get over it. You took insult where none existed.

Freaking brilliant. Except it makes more sense than his posts.

There is an industry related board that I frequent and there is a horrible little troll that lives there with a posting style very similar to our resident's. The only subject that this troll can go on about is how financial advisors are secretly the devil in disguise. He frequently uses the terms "mental midget", "where the work gets done", and rails on his perception of other posters emotional state.

Hmmm.

It's so perfect... builds to such a crescendo. And he hasn't changed a bit, not a single bit, in six years.

Why should he? Remember the so few who had respect for American troops as to say George Jr was lying. That resulted by ignoring popular held beliefs, eliminating reasons justified by fears and emotion, and going after the irrefutable facts. Why change what works? Should I entertain my emotions - which promote intolerance?

Return to an earlier post that demonstrated how tw steps back and sees a same event completely different: So where is that an insult of yesman065? Did he see only posted sentences or did he entertain his emotions to see what was not posted?

I never apologize for conflict created because the other took offense due to emotionally based assumptions. Nobody should. yesman065 took offense at something that did not exist apparently because he did what children and racists also do - entertain their emotions. Now look at that sentence. It was intentionally written that way. Read it again. What did I just do? Did I call yesman065 a child or a racist? Yes if you entertain your emotions. No if you look at that sentence as it was intended - just blunt facts. For those who still cannot see it: tw never said yesman065 is a racist or a child. Obviously. But I must post this expecting yesman065 to impose his emotions into that sentence - to assume I called him a child or a racist. Demonstrated again is the point.

Why did tw so accurately defend the troops when so many so hated America as to believe myths and lies about Saddam? You can see it in that post that contrasted and compared the difference between what yesman065 saw and what tw saw. Notice how yesman065 saw things in that post that were not posted, and were not implied. He applies his own biases to assume facts that did not exist and that were not even intended. It says much about him.

Same applies in this thread. Lookout123 is upset because of a fact he does not dispute. Stock brokers tend to underperform the market by maybe 1%. That makes lookout123 mad. Apparently he applies his emotions to instead see "Lookout123 underperforms the market by 1%." But that was not posted, was it?

Is it my fault that he sees that? Not for one minute. It demonstrates a point I make repeatedly. People get mad and post insults when their emotions cannot grasp, change, or dispute facts.

Ibram - based on your posts, you more than anyone else should appreciate how how some denyperspectives that are unpopular - sometimes with insult. People get angry - entertain conclusions based in emotion - when you are not 'one of them' or state things they cannot emotionally grasp. Well I am not one of 'them'. I routinely stand back and look for larger and alternative perspectives - the refutable fact.

One fact that makes lookout123 so angry: stock brokers average a 1% underperformance. Lookout123 apparently takes it so personal as if it says, "HE underperforms the market". He should be acknowledging how many of his peers don't do a good job. He doesn't. Instead he takes personal offense of a fact that is not a statement about him.

Some people have difficulty emotionally dealing with facts; instead personalize things as yessman065 did. Ibram - your own posts say your peers have trouble with your lifestyle perspectives. Why? Are you a threat to anyone? Depends on whether they acknowledge you for who you are - or do as yesman065 has done here - apply his personal biases. Appreciate why some remain distant from you. Many people just fear anything contrarian because they cannot get beyond their emotion biases.

If you don't understand, well fine. However from your posts, I would expect you to understand tolerance far better than yesman065 or lookout123. Both even take insult where no such insult existed apparently because they have not learned to stop personalizing - therefore are less tolerant and easily angered. Lookout123 so dislikes that stock brokers underperform the market by 1% as to take personal insult. He apparently assumes that was directed at him. It clearly and obviously was not. But decisions based in emotions are the foundation of intolerance. Same reason why yesman065 assumed he was being attacked when obviously no such attack existed. Same reason would explain why some people just cannot get along with you. Its not you. Some poeple routinely entertain their emotions rather then see reality. Yesman065 saw insult where none obviously exists.

Oh almight tw :notworthy- the one and only so full of statements
and talk without action. Have you once responded to my post directed specifically to you, or answered the questions
put to YOU?
Unlike an ASSHOLE
who only claims TW
to have not insulted, yet when shown he has, still ignores the reality
of that which has been proven repeatedly. Shall I post them all
again so you can ignore them and act as if nothing happened?
Should I waste my time?
Are you worth it?
Are you man enough to realize that most of us here are smart and
can to read between the lines, TW.
Surely you can see that only a COWARD
word attempt to ignore the facts when he was wrong. It takes a real
man to take responsiblity for his actions, apologize and move on.

edit* Is there an attack in the above text?

.

What's that s'posed to mean?

:vader1: Come over to the dark side, Luke.