Chances of losing (and winning!) are close to zero.

[MediumTex]

Please address my argument of 'average' inflation in that I state that if some prices go up more than 5% and other less than 5%, the average is still 5%.

If you argument is that inflation over the last 40 years in the U.S. has been around 5%, I can go along with that.

Over that same period, the PP provided an average annual return of about 9%, so that gives you about a 4% inflation adjusted return, which is what the PP owners manual says it should provide.

I think that we are now on the same page regarding the PP's inflation-adjusted returns.

[MediumTex]

But I still had that need for safety insecurity so I decided to go 50/50 PP/VP. Right at the top of gold/silver in 2011 I went back in and made again losses as it started dropping again. However, I also had learned a lot about psychology, philosophy and even started going to therapy. I did not self attack anymore but evaluated rationally what mistake I made in speculation (bought when it had just gone up parabolically). I also had a strong foundation of insight that risk taking was required if I wanted to make money. I heard about the serious collapse of bitcoin since 2011 and challenged my ideas why I had rejected it. I used my knowledge of value investing and technical analyses to allocate 10% to bitcoin by the start of 2013.

Today a year later I can say that I succeeded finally in being a successful investor. Bitcoin worked out tremendously and I held tight knowing the potential. My return on my whole portfolio is a staggering 65% for this year even though my pp as well as precious metals went down. Since 2008 I used to have only 6% on average, but now I have 12% on average. PP philosophy will say I was just lucky but that is incomplete.

I have been fighting my own prejudices over and over, first by questioning my qualities as an investor, and then questioning the pp. Only by doing the latter I was prepared to risk a considerable part of my capital on an amazing opportunity that passed by. Sure I had some luck too as every successful enterprise has. But as the saying goes, luck is when preparation meets opportunity.

The PP philosophy is not a preparation but a rejection of opportunity. Supported by untrue statements that are coming from fear, not reason. If you cannot recognize that the real returns of the PP are low, if you cannot see that it is a contradiction that you can be hedged against everything but still make good money (no risk, high reward), you are missing something.

Okay, so let me get this straight: You ditched the PP a couple of times and got burned.  More recently, however, you took a speculative position in bitcoin and it has worked out well for you, and that success is making the PP's boring 9% average returns look unappealing.  Is that right?

What do you think Harry Browne would have said to someone who asked him about the prudence of moving out of the PP to take a large position in silver or bitcoin?

Do you really think that bitcoin is an "investment"?  For me, bitcoin looks an awful lot like an electronic tulip.

But hey, if you think that your research and insight have provided you with a competitive advantage that will allow you to reliably pull money out of the bitcoin market, then I would say go for it and do what works for you.

The PP will always be here if the casino starts to treat you poorly.

[Kshartle]

You might be right.  Maybe we all have the right to not only own ourselves, but there's some way to assert our claim on property in a logically consistent way, but you act like it's just pure, simple logic, and it's not... and more importantly you (and Austrians) use that logic to stand on a moral pedestal, which can feel a bit condescending to SOME who try to argue against it (not me... I can handle the banter).  So realize that your debate opponents also feel equally talked-down to when you do that.  Like I said, you might be right, but they might think it feels REALLY lame to jump right on the moral high-horse of perfect liberty and have to argue their positions from the position of being called a slave-driver.

The onus is not on anyone to prove that slavery or theft are morally wrong. The right of people to own their bodies and property is demonstrated every single day by all of us. Last time I checked if someone came into your house with a gun and robbed you you would recognize they had no right to take what was yours. If they decided to cut out your kidneys you would object because your kidneys belong to you and not them. If they were going to murder you and take away your future would you object to your own murder? Why would you do that if you don't have right to your life and the rest of society or others do have a right to it?

How can everyone have a right to everyone else's life and property but not their own? If no one has these rights then what is the rationale for having police to enforce laws at all (which I presume you support). Taxing someone's income is stealing their money which is their property. It is robbing them of the value of the time it took them to earn it. Just because there is no whip involved does not make it morally superior to outright slavery, although it's certainly preferable to the one being taxed.

If a human does not have the right to steal, or murder, or kidnapp, how can he give that right to someone else? If 100 people do not have that right, how can they collectively decide someone else has that right? When you realize the immorility of these beliefs it destroys the worldview of the state as protector, defender, righter of wrongs etc. It is devastating. Ignoring this reality or denying it is PURELY AN EMOTIONAL DEFENSE MECHANISM. Claiming you are not being aggresed against or advocating the immoral agression against others because you refuse to see the obvious is an attempt to sheild your psyche from the reality of your beliefs.

When people point this out, dissmissing it as a rant or using words like "spewing" rather than actually adressing the analysis is more emotional defense. Saying that robbery theft and murder are acceptable unless someone proves to you they are not speaks for itself. Pretending that this is not what government is and does is sticking your head in the sand.

Suggesting that people have a right to food, shelter, water, clothing, healthcare, work etc. but they don't have right to their own body or the fruits of their labor or property that they voluntarily trade with another is 100% logic fail. All those things must come from somewhere and someone else so it's claiming people have a right to other people's lives and property but not their own. This is completely retarded would you not agree?

Suggesting that democracy and voting trumps individual rights is just a suggestion that there is no such thing as any moral standard at all. It's the equivalent of saying on an island with 2 men and 1 woman, if the island votes 2 to 1 that rape is ok then POOF it is. Is that what you believe (I know it's not, just trying to make a point)?

Suggesting that there is a social contract that binds everyone to everyone is also completely false. A contract only exists when two competent parties enter into it voluntarily. There are legal experts here who will attest to that. If it's not volutary it's not a contract...it's coercion. I can can tell you flat out that taxes have nothing to do with a social contract because I personally object to them and only pay them due to coercion.

Suggesting that since I remain in the US I give my consent to it's taxes and laws is utter and complete BS. This is arguing that slaves working on the plantation are giving consent to their slave master's oppression of them. I have no option to move somewhere free. To leave I have to leave my friends, family, occupation, home etc. This is not freedom of choice. It's choosing between two less than ideal options. Escaping to the mountains does not make you free because you are still not able to live the life you wanted.

If pointing out that theft, rape, murder, kidnapping, attacking, threatening etc. are morally wrong then so be it. If pointing out that it doesn’t matter what justification you have for such behavior does not validate it is offensive then so be it. If pointing out that no one person has rights that another person doesn’t have is taking the moral high ground than I am guilty as charged. Come join me up here on the moral high ground. There is enough room for everyone and all are welcome. 

Ok that's a lot......I didn't pull punches because I know you can handle it and wouldn't appreciate someone placating you. Others have a different opinion. Many on this forum would be polite and entertain someone jumping on and saying the sun revolves around the flat Earth. I think that's doing the person a disservice. I will also point out to someone when they have spinich in their teeth. It's to help them.

[systemskeptic]

Not sure what to tell you. I don't represent the company. I don't really care that much to spend time investigating them. And I see no reason why MIT researchers and State Street Global would be in cahoots with the government. (State Street would lose all of its business if it wasn't reasonably correct.) MIT/PriceStats isn't the only third-party research that confirms the government numbers. All of the respected third-party data I've seen generally confirms the official US government statistics.

All third party data?  As far as I can see there are three primary sources of inflation data, two of which are third party:
1. The BLS
2. Pricestats (same as MIT)
3. Shadowstats

The first two report inflation at 2% and the last reports at 5%.  Why are you trusting Pricestats but not Shadowstats when you have no more information on the methods or process that Pricestats use?  Both Pricestats and Shadowstats are mostly opaque, but at least Shadowstats tells what method they are using (an older BLS type method).  Pricestats gives literally zero information that I can see.

Have you ever thought that if Pricestats came out with an inflation number way higher than the BLS nobody would believe it (hey sounds like Shadowstats?) and then maybe they would have no business?  Maybe they are only in business because they tune their algorithm to match the BLS numbers?

[Kshartle]

Have you ever thought that if Pricestats came out with an inflation number way higher than the BLS nobody would believe it (hey sounds like Shadowstats?) and then maybe they would have no business?  Maybe they are only in business because they tune their algorithm to match the BLS numbers?

Jesus man that is way too logical. I hope you have a chart to back up your WILD SPECULATION / CONSPIRACY THEORY / TIN FOIL HAT emotionaly/politically driven insane suggestion.

[Marc De Mesel]

Please address my argument of 'average' inflation in that I state that if some prices go up more than 5% and other less than 5%, the average is still 5%.

If you argument is that inflation over the last 40 years in the U.S. has been around 5%, I can go along with that.

Over that same period, the PP provided an average annual return of about 9%, so that gives you about a 4% inflation adjusted return, which is what the PP owners manual says it should provide.

I think that we are now on the same page regarding the PP's inflation-adjusted returns.

So after 20 pages you just repeat your intitial point.

Please stop misrepresenting the PP returns.

The average return of the PP is NOT 9%. This is only if you include the 70's when the PP did not even exist.

The past 20 years the PP has returned 7% on average. And not only in the US, but also in the EU and UK.

I have given empirical evidence that inflation in the US since 2000 has been 5%. That means a real return of ONLY 2%, before costs!

Please give correct information. The costs can be low if you do it yourself but that does take time and knowledge. If you outsource it and take a PP fund, it is another 0.5% + taxes in most countries as well, so after costs you only make around 1% real return per year with the PP.

This comes as no surprise. The philosophy of the PP is to hedge against every economic climate in equal weight, even if the probabilities are low for it to happen. So you will always have assets going up and others going down and weighing equally hard. You are protected as the best since even low probabilities are hedged fully but there is no free lunch. It is at the expense of real returns. Real returns are only possible if you take calculated risks and weigh your allocation accordingly.

Harry Browne was misrepresenting the PP returns and overpromising, and so are you.

[moda0306]

Kshartle,

We have run a few years of large deficits, which went a long way to repair our balance-sheets.  Looks like it will be about $670 billion in 2013.

As recovery occurs (even if it's sluggish) and balance-sheets are repaired (even if too-slowly) deficits will naturally come down, as is the nature of a closed system

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/1 ... 45096.html


We've laid out our disagreements... you might be right about deficits causing huge problems.  MT, PS, Gumby, and myself and others have pointed out why your analysis is flawed by discussing the nature of deficits, balance-sheets, recessions, demand-deficiency, interest-rate pressures, history, etc.  We have NOT ignored your point or been lazy in arguing ours against it.

We can "agree to disagree" on macroeconomics, but I will not agree that we haven't addressed your arguments.  We've done so ad nauseum.  We just have different perspectives.


Regarding all the business about individual rights.  I didn't say anyone had a right to anything.  A right is a moral claim.  If I kill someone, I might not be stating I had the "right" to do so, because that is making a moral statement about men.  But for you to assert that I DON'T have a right to do so is a MORAL claim, not a factual one.... for the record, it's one I wholly agree with.

Me "defending myself" indicates no moral certainty either.  An animal would do the same... do animals have rights?  It indicates self-preservation instincts, but like I said, animals... hell even bugs... have those as well.  A long time ago, a man's instinct to assert his right over a fertile female was usually folllowed by him forcefully asserting that right... this doesn't make it right... it makes it a biological instinct.  You're trying to turn biology into a link between deductive logic and morality and you're failing miserably... sorry to say.

Even if you could make it logically conclusive, which you haven't yet (just because I control my appendages and you control yours doesn't shed light on morality), we're still left with the dilemma of having been FORCED to share this world with each other by nature, whch means any claim I make on the products of nature is a claim you can't make, and therefore is an act of force.  THIS is a deductively-logically conclusive fact.  A "right" is a moral concept, not easily supported by deductive logic.  "Force" is a physical concept, and I've repeatedly shown how it exists even when you think of "freedom" or "rightful claims," because you're exerting force or threatening force over anyone else who would like to use or even exist on the resources that nature has provided.



Look, I agree that theft, murder, rape, etc are wrong, but I don't come to that conclusion by trying to patch together a deductive logical framework from the observation that we have some control over our body.  Further, we have to recognize that these ideals are tainted by the fact that we all live on this rock and have no choice but to share it.

I never said anyone had the right to food, clothing, healthcare, etc.  That's another moral claim that we can argue alongside your belief in a right to property.

You're accusing me of emotional defense mechanisms regarding people having "this" right, but not "that" right, and I'm trying to explain that we can't deductively prove the existence of rights in the first place.  Believe me when I say that my emotions are locked up in a box when I claim that I can't prove rape/murder is evil.  I FEEL that they are horrible.  I believe it through my entire being.  I just can't prove it by using moral deductive-logic that would apply to the fly I swatted the other day.  So my emotions are FIRMLY in check when I say that you're not proving anything by observing that we can control our movements.

[Pointedstick]

We only have the rights we can enforce against others, or get a third party to enforce against those others for us. It's a total social construction based on (hopefully) shared morality, and the temporal, artificial nature of rights is revealed should that shared morality ever break down.

Rights don't do the strong any good. The strong always take what they want. Always have, always will. Rights are for the weak. But rights are doomed to fail the weak since it is in the nature of the strong to take from the weak without regard for their rights.

As Harry Browne has so beautifully stated, if we wish to be secure, appealing to rights will do no good; we must instead endeavor to become strong. Locking your doors is an implicit admission of this principle. If rights were enough to secure our safety, we would have no need of any kind of protective or defensive measures.

Is this fair? No. Is this the nature of all biological life--including us? Yes.

[AdamA]

What a great post. I understand your frustration Kshartle and I think it is rightful to feel frustrated when your strong logic is continuously being rejected.

I agree that KShartle's logic is strong, and I don't think anyone here is rejecting it. 

I think all that some of these other people are saying is that things don't always pan out how and when we think they will, no matter how logical our thinking is, so it doesn't hurt to understand some alternative points of view.

It's clear to me when I read posts from MT, Gumby, Moda, TennGaPa, Pointedstick, etc. that they all understand what KShartle is saying, and are not rejecting it.  They are just stating that he has one point of view, but that there are others worth considering as well. 

[Gumby]

This means the deficits continue to grow, which means the supply of bonds the US must sell has to grow. Supply goes up price goes down. Price of bonds goes down, yields go up.

If that were true, then yields would only go up when the government deficit spends. Of course, it isn't true, as we can see over the past few decades. The reason why it isn't true is because every time a government bond is auctioned by the Treasury, the money to buy the bond is spent into the private sector and that spent money becomes bank reserves that are used to buy the next round of bonds. In other words, every dollar of government spending creates demand for new Treasury bonds. Come on man, think about it. Treasury auctions are just a reserve drain for banks to drain their excess reserves into an interesting bearing bond.

[Marc De Mesel]

Not to completely derail this subject, but I wonder what people who feel inflation is under-reported think about nominal GDP.

If inflation is significantly under-reported over the last 13 years, then it's likely that nominal GDP is, as well.  This means our debt/GDP ratio is in a much more "safe" position than currently reported (110% or something like that).

You are derailing the thread, please start a new topic.

I'm sorry moda. I regret having said this. I am not personally interested in your question posed for the time being but of course feel free to share your thoughts in this thread.

[moda0306]

Kshartle,

You said they live in their ivory towers.  I didn't realize what you meant is that they're simply overpaid, but certainly not wealthy. 

I was referring to the rulers, not all goverment workers. I think that was quite obvious. I'm talking about the politicians, central bankers, political appointees, generals etc. The people who live fabulously wealthy at the expense of everyone else and provide nothing of value. You turned it to all government workers to change the subject and I indulged the diversion. my mistake.

Ok, I've thought about this but never really researched it... it seems to me most congressmen and especially central bankers are already well-to-do when they enter office.  I'm sure there's a lot of cronyism, but for the most part, these are smart people (from some perspectives) who know their way around finance/investing.  But to say that taxes and "artificially low rates" lines their pockets to a significant degree should probably carry a bit of evidence.  I have absolutely NO evidence that Ben Bernanke uses the banking system to enrich himself.  He probably could have made more money for less hassle by staying in the private sector.

Besides, we're still talking a tiny, tiny portion of the wealth in this country being held by politicians after they've taken office.

[moda0306]

Not to completely derail this subject, but I wonder what people who feel inflation is under-reported think about nominal GDP.

If inflation is significantly under-reported over the last 13 years, then it's likely that nominal GDP is, as well.  This means our debt/GDP ratio is in a much more "safe" position than currently reported (110% or something like that).

You are derailing the thread, please start a new topic.

I'm sorry moda. I regret having said this. I am not personally interested in you question posed for the time being but of course feel free to share your thoughts in this thread.

Don't worry about it, Marc.  I appreciate the apology.

[Gumby]

All third party data?  As far as I can see there are three primary sources of inflation data, two of which are third party:
1. The BLS
2. Pricestats (same as MIT)
3. Shadowstats

Shadowstats? Heh, no. I said "respected" third-party data. Sorry, but Shadowstats is not considered to be a respected source on Wall Street. The bond market clearly does not react to anything that Shadowstats says.

As I mentioned in an earlier comment, ECRI (Economic Cycle Research Institute) is widely considered to be another respected third-party source for inflation data. The bond market does pay attention to what ECRI says.

at least Shadowstats tells what method they are using (an older BLS type method).

It's been well established by most economists that the older BLS methods were obsolete and did not represent the effects of prices on the broad economy.

Have you ever thought that if Pricestats came out with an inflation number way higher than the BLS nobody would believe it (hey sounds like Shadowstats?) and then maybe they would have no business?  Maybe they are only in business because they tune their algorithm to match the BLS numbers?

Shadowstats appears to be a scam as best as I can tell. He has been reporting very high inflation for awhile now despite the fact that his subscription rates haven't increased even a penny, over the past decade. Meanwhile, he's been predicting hyperinflation for years now and still demands payment in "worthless" dollars. It appears to just a scam to stoke the political biases of gold bugs.

You're also forgetting that "core" inflation is not intended to perfectly represent a household's expenses. Core inflation is just a snapshot of long term prices in the broader economy. The official "core" data is fairly accurate, but it's more useful for Wall Street and the bond market than it is for you and me.

[moda0306]

We only have the rights we can enforce against others, or get a third party to enforce against those others for us. It's a total social construction based on (hopefully) shared morality, and the temporal, artificial nature of rights is revealed should that shared morality ever break down.

Rights don't do the strong any good. The strong always take what they want. Always have, always will. Rights are for the weak. But rights are doomed to fail the weak since it is in the nature of the strong to take from the weak without regard for their rights.

As Harry Browne has so beautifully stated, if we wish to be secure, appealing to rights will do no good; we must instead endeavor to become strong. Locking your doors is an implicit admission of this principle. If rights were enough to secure our safety, we would have no need of any kind of protective or defensive measures.

Is this fair? No. Is this the nature of all biological life--including us? Yes.

Wise words.

I do part a bit on a bit of this... there are functional and philisophical elements to a lot of our debates... I have the following goals:

1) To very soberly determine the best route for me to take to ensure my success, as well as the sucess of those close to me.  Whether I have a "right" to something is utterly, completely irrelevant to me, and the mere dwelling on it will probably serve me to the negative moreso than to the positive.  Strategy gets you half way around the world while your "rights" are still trying to put their pants on.

2) For personal interest and philisophical purposes, what is the best theoretical moral framework as to the role of 1) human interaction with each other, and 2) the role of government.  Even if I could better myself (see part 1) by doing so, the idea of killing someone to do it is instinctually reprehensible to me.  I think there are moral truths out there, or (at best) moral "probablys" .  Even if we can figure those out, we still have to balance those against our dilemma of sharing this earth with each other.

So the will to develop a feeling for what rights we have is noble on for purposes of debate and moral philosophy, but it's useless for personal decision-making.

[Gumby]

I was referring to the rulers, not all goverment workers. I think that was quite obvious. I'm talking about the politicians, central bankers, political appointees, generals etc. The people who live fabulously wealthy at the expense of everyone else and provide nothing of value. You turned it to all government workers to change the subject and I indulged the diversion. my mistake.

FWIW, these guys don't make their wealth from government salaries. They tend to be wealthy before they obtain their power, and they continue to make their money from favorable trading opportunities (i.e. "legal" insider trading), speaking engagements and post-office consulting arrangements. For instance, Al Gore and Bill Clinton made the bulk of their wealth after leaving office. George Bush made his wealth in the private sector before entering office.

Nobody really gets rich from their government paycheck. They get rich from external sources that their power tends to attract.

[Kshartle]

2) For personal interest and philisophical purposes, what is the best theoretical moral framework as to the role of 1) human interaction with each other, and 2) the role of government.

You realize the government is made up of humans right? It is not comprised of different beings. Do you believe the humans in the government should be held to a different moral standard?

Is it ok for Saddam to torture people because he's the president of Iraq? Is it ok for Obama to bomb and steal because he's the president?

What makes it wrong for me but ok for them?

[MediumTex]

So after 20 pages you just repeat your intitial point.

Please stop misrepresenting the PP returns.

The average return of the PP is NOT 9%. This is only if you include the 70's when the PP did not even exist.

The past 20 years the PP has returned 7% on average. And not only in the US, but also in the EU and UK.

I have given empirical evidence that inflation in the US since 2000 has been 5%. That means a real return of ONLY 2%, before costs!

Please give correct information. The costs can be low if you do it yourself but that does take time and knowledge. If you outsource it and take a PP fund, it is another 0.5% + taxes in most countries as well, so after costs you only make around 1% real return per year with the PP.

***

Harry Browne was misrepresenting the PP returns and overpromising, and so are you.

If you begin the PP's returns history in the early 1980s, then the PP's returns have been lower than 9% because the rate of inflation has been lower over that period than it was during the 1970s.  That's not a misrepresentation; that's taking a different time period during which inflation figures were different.  The principle is exactly the same, though--the PP returns over time have been based on the rate of inflation + 4-5%.

You haven't shown that inflation since 2000 in the U.S. has been 5% or greater.  You have expressed a strongly held opinion, but you haven't proven it.  As evidence that you haven't proven it, you seem not to have persuaded anyone here that you are correct other than people who already believed in a similar inflation figure.

If your argument depends on rejecting every official and quasi-official inflation report, plus every anecdotal report of inflation (especially when it comes to wage increases), then I don't think that your argument is as strong as you imagine it to be.

But like many beliefs, if your views on inflation give you comfort, then by all means I would say continue believing them.  Just don't get annoyed with others when they choose not to believe the same thing.

[Kshartle]

Nobody really gets rich from their government paycheck. They get rich from external sources that their power tends to attract.

Are you aware of the term distinction without a difference?

Do you have any idea how Obama lives? I don't care if his check is 400k a year. No one who makes 50 million a year lives like him.

[Gumby]

Nobody really gets rich from their government paycheck. They get rich from external sources that their power tends to attract.

Are you aware of the term distinction without a difference?

Do you have any idea how Obama lives? I don't care if his check is 400k a year. No one who makes 50 million a year lives like him.

Yawn. So one guy and his family lives pretty well in a white government building that runs the civilized world. Hardly many "ivory towers" beyond that. You should have just said the "White House".

[Kshartle]

Nobody really gets rich from their government paycheck. They get rich from external sources that their power tends to attract.

Are you aware of the term distinction without a difference?

Do you have any idea how Obama lives? I don't care if his check is 400k a year. No one who makes 50 million a year lives like him.

Yawn. So one guy and his family lives pretty well in a white government building that runs the civilized world. Hardly the "ivory towers" you claimed. You should have just said the "White House".

I would appreciate it if you didn't respond to my posts. You deliberately mistate and ignore when your nonsense posts are pointed out as such. Please don't respond to my posts anymore. I'm sincerely asking that. I'll ignore yours also so we'll be even. I'll start and show you how easy it is.

[Gumby]

I would appreciate it if you didn't respond to my posts. You deliberately mistate and ignore when your nonsense posts are pointed out as such. Please don't respond to my posts anymore. I'm sincerely asking that. I'll ignore yours also so we'll be even. I'll start and show you how easy it is.

I could see how you'd want to be able to grind your political axes without being challenged, but I'll politely ignore your request. I don't respond to you expecting you to respond to me. I am usually responding to point out the glaring flaws in your logic. So that others aren't swayed by your nonsense.

For example, when you say that the government issuing debt will cause an oversupply of bonds, you completely misunderstand the fact that every dollar of government spending increases the demand for government debt (i.e. banks need to convert their newly created reserves into government interest bearing bonds).

Your logic often needs to be corrected. That's why I respond.

[AdamA]

I would appreciate it if you didn't respond to my posts. You deliberately mistate and ignore when your nonsense posts are pointed out as such. Please don't respond to my posts anymore. I'm sincerely asking that. I'll ignore yours also so we'll be even. I'll start and show you how easy it is.

One of the points of having a forum like this one is that those curious about the PP and related issues can search the internet and read our discussions. 

If you ask someone who disagrees with what you're saying not to respond to your posts, then the threads become less educational. 

I get a lot from Gumby's posts and feel like they add a lot to this forum, especially when it comes to topics such as the one being discussed in this thread. 

If you don't like Gumby's posts, just don't read them, but I think it's a little bit unreasonable to ask him not to post.

[Pointedstick]

Something that many people forget is that that the bulk of the value created by an online discussion forum is actually consumed by people not participating in the thread who read the result later.

When you engage in online discussion, there's really no hope of actually changing the mind of your debate partner. But there is hope of convincing people reading along at the time or later. It's most effective to your cause to structure your arguments, your tone, and your style for them; not as much for the person you're actually responding to.

It's valuable to constantly be asking yourself, "how are my words going to be perceived by the anonymous masses reading along?"

[Kshartle]

I would appreciate it if you didn't respond to my posts. You deliberately mistate and ignore when your nonsense posts are pointed out as such. Please don't respond to my posts anymore. I'm sincerely asking that. I'll ignore yours also so we'll be even. I'll start and show you how easy it is.

One of the points of having a forum like this one is that those curious about the PP and related issues can search the internet and read our discussions. 

If you ask someone who disagrees with what you're saying not to respond to your posts, then the threads become less educational. 

I get a lot from Gumby's posts and feel like they add a lot to this forum, especially when it comes to topics such as the one being discussed in this thread. 

If you don't like Gumby's posts, just don't read them, but I think it's a little bit unreasonable to ask him not to post.

I asked him to please not respond to mine. It has nothing to do with disagreement, nothing at all. It's never disagreement that's the problem.