Who's emotional, muppet? You're the one foaming at the mouth.

Again, explain to me why I should pull out the numbers to disprove what you claim. I've simply asked you to support your claims. Should be very simple, for an intelligent, honest muppet such as yourself.

Did I say to ignore analysts? *If I did, please quote it. If I didn't quit putting words in my mouth to divert attention from your inability to support your position.

Wipe the foam from your mouth, quit your sputtering and answer the questions.

* I did say to ignore a certain entertainer and the talking heads. Those certainly don't qualify as analysts. In fact, few analysts ever make it in front of a tv camera.

Since our DLM (dear little muppet) doesn't seem interested in actually answering any of the questions he's been asked, or for that matter, providing any support for his opinions that he presents as facts, I'll briefly do it for him.

For the past several years to tweak my nose, DLM has repeatedly stated that mutual funds underperform the market. He points this out as his proof that money managers and advisors aren't worth their fees, and are generally thieves and liars. (DLM places a very high value on honesty.) I've asked him repeatedly asked DLM to cite his sources because I wanted to give him the opportunity to put the information into context. Something about intellectual honesty and all that jazz... He couldn't be bothered to respond, so in a nutshell here is the info.

It is common knowledge that "mutual funds underperform the market in a typical year." yep. That's a fact. That is such a commonly accepted fact that I won't even bother to cite a specific source. It is generally accepted that 75-80% of all funds underperform "the market". It is generally accepted that "the market" is represented by the S&P 500. That is the number that the talking heads get so agitated about on the nightly news. That is an index used to measure price movements of 500 companies. Now here is the thing, DLM's statistic of "most mutual funds underperform the market" is misleading because MOST mutual aren't even designed to beat the S&P 500 in any given year. What is even more telling is that they aren't even benchmarked against the S&P 500 because they have very little (if any correlation).

Example:

XYZ* bond fund has averaged 8.1% total return for the last ten years, net of all fees. The S&P 500 has averaged better than 11%. Our DLM would point at this fact as support for his position, ignoring the fact that XYZ fund is actually benchmarked against a different index - one made up of :eek: bonds. It isn't supposed to outperform the S%P 500, anequityindex. It is an investment used to provide income. It is an investment that should have a negative correlation with equities. It is an investment that a wise investor puts a portion of their assets in to provide income, stability, and diversity to their portfolio. It is the type of investment that is designed to be at optimal performance and earn its keep by going up when "the market" goes down. That is the point of asset allocation, balancing risk so as to provide a desireable rate of return in relation to an investor's personal goals and risk tolerance.

That is but one example of the "mutual funds that underperform the market". Roughly 25% of the mutual funds in existence are designed to benchmark against the S&P 500. Many of them do, in fact, underperform the market in any given year, but if our generally accepted figure is that 20-25% of funds "underperform the market" but only 25% of funds are designed to even correlate with that index... where is the problem?

I would be happy to discuss this further, but I have to go try to kick a ball into a net for awhile.

Next up: Stockbrokers routinely underperform the market by 1%. Care to beat me to the punch, DLM? You've only had a couple of years to prepare.

*Not the actual name of the fund, but for legal and ethical reasons I cannot discuss the actual name of the fund without knowing the specifics about every person who reads what I write. It is however a very real fund.

There. That's what is insulting and demeaning. You have made an assumption, because the aspect of the picture on which yesman commented was the immediate (and untouchable) fate of the children on the bus, that this means he doesn't see the bigger picture. You have made a leap from one thing to another and in the process accused yesman of the worst kind of myopia. How do you know he doesn't see the bigger picture, simply because he chose to comment on a small part of the picture?

Even worse yet is the FACT that I DID NOT comment on it! Please read what was actually posted. PLEASE! This truth is self evident - I didn't say one thing about it before being attacked.

Post #1 was mine - a link and quote from the story - post #8 by tw, the mental midget compared my view (of which there was none) to his. tw, the mental midget, made an assumption which was totally and completely wrong - tw's just too small a man to admit it. The only fact there is that tw was wrong. That fact is there for all to see - look for yourself - please and end this now. tw was wrong and my response was not only correct, but justified as well.

:corn:

Yesman, tw's style is, everything posted in the thread is wrong and tw is here to bring truth and light .. blah, blah, blah. Then he'll taunt you if you let him.
Let this one go, you'll have plenty of reason to jump his shit later, with something fresh, and you'll be just as right then as you are now.

I don't watch the show but am told one judge is particulary good. He does not waste time with silly emotions. If you are bad, he says so. That is what your best friend does - honest.

So you tell me. Is having people say what you want to hear more important than saying truths bluntly? If so, we would never get along. I would resent that you always lied to me. Yes, everything would be considered a lie because I could not trust what you say. As noted previously, I have highest contempt for liars - including those who do it to be nice. Only children worry about emotions. Nice to me is one who is honest.

So you tell me. How would you rephrase it to be not demeaning? Since you know it was demeaing, then you phrase it to be 100% honest. You criticized. Now show us how it should be phrased to appease emotions.

Could you explain that first paragraph t me please?

Thanks Bruce. Remember I tried to make amends twice - I'll try again. I have a passion (yes tw thats an emotion) for peace.

The fundamental point. I want no one to be nice if they must lie. Of course, that is not justification for personal attacks and profanity. Example: One homeowner was in a tirade as he explained how Habitat for Humanity has deceived him into selling his home. After about 15 minutes, he stopped and said, "Nothing much bothers you, does it." "Why?", I replied. "You are stating a perspective." I did not care how angry he was. It was not relevant and was completely ignored. He was telling me something I had not heard from others."

Well the guy did have a cohesive story as long as we ignore some missing facts. He was telling the truth - completely - which is why I kept listening. But with a few other facts, one would arrive at a complete different conclusion. Most would have only heard his emotion- probably tuned him out. I don't care. I only heard his facts. Appreciate the difference.

If you tell me a lie to be nice to me, well, many a salesman lost a sale for doing just that. I associate political correctness with lying to create another's death. Yes, I associate the lying called 'political correctness' to be that bad. Therefore one car salesman could make the deal with me in only 5 minutes. I do not need people worrying about emotions - mine or anyone else’s. To not state facts for fear of offending another is outright lying with contempt for everyone. Apparently that is not DanaC. We apparently are that different.

Some hours after reading your two above post, I still kept asking about what was missing in DanaC's post. *WHY* is that demeaning. You never included 'why'. You said it was demeaning only because it was demeaning. Why? Is it demeaning to say someone only takes short term and microscopic perspectives? Well that would explain why DanaC views "and don't see the bigger picture" as demeaning.

No it is not. Obviously it is not. It just is - a statement. What did yesman065 do? He did not see the bigger picture. I don't find that demeaning for the same reason I never understood 1960s racism and why I still see racism even among peers who insist they are not racist. If they cannot say the same thing in front of a black man, then they are lying even to themselves. We call that political correctness. What they call being nice, I call outright lying. Are you telling me you never saw someone say something different to you that they would not say in front of others? It is what I do. I don't 'spin' based upon the audience.

Implications or human biases have zero place in that quoted phrase. The phrase only says "and don't see the bigger picture". Where is the emotion - the hidden meaning? Where is the demeaning statement?

And one more question. Why do I keep posting this - and you do not see it? Why do you outrightly deny what I keep posting. Does your world only contain people who are so politically correct? Is that why you have assumed I too am a liar?

That need to see hidden meaning in the phrase would explain why you can be a politician - always say the 'right thing'. Seeing "and don't see the bigger picture" for anything but a statement is, to me, embarrassing usage of emotion: viewing something that does not exist. And that is why we would not get along. Apparently you don't believe people only state what they state. Apparently you see hidden or implied meaning in everything. That would drive me nuts because that, to me, is lying to everyone including yourself.

Paul is dead because he has no shoes on the Abbey Road cover. Did you not understand that example? Those English Nazis were also outrightly lying to me the same way. That Paul had no shoes has zero hidden meaning. That Paul had not shoes only meant Paul had no shoes. No other meaning. No emotion. The picture only said one thing. Paul had no shoes. Do you see the same thing? If you saw anything else on the Abbey Road cover, then to me you were even lying to yourself. Did you forget the meaning of that example? If not, then why do you read into "and don't see the bigger picture" something that never was there? I am totally flabbergasted why you must see something where nothing exists. The only reason to see something more comes from emotional bias - this need to have a world that is politically correct.

I have probably posted too much. Your eyes probably have long since glazed over. If you don't understand explicitly the Abbey Road example, why political correctness is overt lying, and why you see something in that phrase that does not exist, then you must assume I am lying.

DanaC - based upon your posts, you are a political type. Therefore you will not see what I have actually posted without multiple rereads. If you really do want to understand what I have posted, then reread it multiple times with many hours between each reading - before replying. I am apparently telling you something that you have zero grasp of. Those hidden meanings in that phrase do not exist. To assume it was demeaning, you would have to assume myopic perspective is an insult. Obviously never was. But it would explain why you find what is not demeaning to be demeaning. It would explain why you see insult where none exists.

Again, you call that phrase demeaning? Fine. Why? You never said why. So how am I to even consider your post as credible? I have posted repeatedly why not. Your turn. To have credibility, your post must tell us why that phrase is demeaning.

(BTW, was that last paragraph demeaning? No. Never was. Never was intended. But intentionally worded so that you might see a hidden meaning - where none exists.)

Actually, Dana did explain why she thought it was demeaning.

Nope. I assume you are talking bollocks.

Good. Post it. Don't forget exactly what my original post said - a difference between how two people see a same thing differently in a first minute. Yesman065 immediately was worried about something he could do nothing about. In that same one minute, I saw a bigger picture. Where is that an insult to anyone? Yesman065 posted exactly what is summarized here. But you tell me. Where is this paragraph in error? How does my post differ from what he did?

So where is the attack? Show me where DanaC cites reasons for ít being an attack? She even quotes a phrase that attacks no one, calls that an attack, and does not say why. So show me where "and don't see the bigger picture" attacks anyone. If you see a reason 'why' in DanaC's post, then rephrase it and post it here. Yes it is an overt challenge. Show me. I am now going right after the same mindset that also creates racism, bar room fights, and support for the 'Pearl Harboring' of Iraq. Yesman immediately replied that he was tired of such attacks. What attack? Show me because DanaC will not. She only says it is an attack – does not post any reason why. Show me where that attack is. Show me the words that disparage anyone. You cannot without applying personal biases and implications. And that is the point, is it not? Where is this paragraph in error?

Simply stated was how two people responded to a same event in a first minute - nothing more. Yesman065 immediately replied about being tired of being attacked when the only attack was in his head. He cannot even cite text that attacks him because none exists. He repeatedly ignores request to cite that attacking text. Where is this paragraph in error?

But show me. Show me why that text is an attack. DanaC does not. If you think otherwise, then show me. That's maybe four different 'show me's requested because so many have opinions – and will not even cite a single reason why. Show me where and why an attack exists without adding personal biases or implications.

So you somehow know and cannot be bothered to first learn? You never once say why that phrase is an attack. You just know? That is the exact same reason why the emotional are so quick to start barroom fights. Why do you make claims of an attack and yet cannot even cite the attack words? Or do you have access to knowledge that you refuse to share?

DanaC if you cannot even provide reasons why, then why should you have credibility here? But again, I offer you the opportunity to be emotional and take offense OR to be logical and answer the question.

You were also asked to rephrase then paragraph so that it was not an insult. I will suggest why you did not do so. The original paragraph never was an insult. However show me. Show me that you can your next post will be passed in a grasp - and not another knee-jerk response.

OK...here's Dana's explanation:

However...

I never said whether I agreed with her explanation, or not.