Truman: You are quite a gentleman indeed. On this point, I am quite serious. After "Don" strongly implies in a post addressed to you that you are "crying" and "complaining, " and after your explanation of the series of events I described which suggested that "Don" was some "groupie" hanging around the computer writing "childish" notes, Don pays you a compliment and you return the same. I guess, for whatever reason, you are going to give "Don" a pass on the groupie theory. I guess the hard hitting questions don't count.
I won't be so bold <g> as to note that the compliment was offered to both you and lars, the only two on the thread at that time who had expressed at least the possibility my theory had some weight. Could it be that "Don" paid you and lars a compliment in an effort to have you overlook the fact that he never responded to any of the valid questions out there? Was it even a compliment: did you deserve "better" treatment or better supposed "attacks?"
BTW, in case you are interested, the reason I came forward was with the intention of helping you out. I didn't like seeing you take a bashing especially given my suppositions about the source. I have no axe to grind with BB. I have enjoyed Bob's show and him for years. I think he is brilliant. However, there has been one his personality characteristic that has grown to bother me over the years. It is when he is inaccurate on some issue , minor or otherwise, he will not admit it. Have you ever heard admit to an error in all the time you have listened to him? Don't get me wrong -- he will not deny that he has erred. That is not his style. When faced with such a situation, and this is not often, I have seen (AOL) (you have not had this benefit) or heard (radio) Bob can sometimes ignore the issue totally or break into a sales pitch on himself or his record or just plain become irritated. "Don's " post to you was just that ... suggesting that you were complaining or crying . It was clearIy an effort to silence.
You see, in my post concerning the Kaufman Funds and the Vista Funds, I stated that to compare the funds to the Vanguard Extended Market and to the Vanguard S & P 500 was inaccurate. Well "Don" was half right when he pointed to the Vanguard Total Index as opposed to the Vanguard Extended Market Fund. I was in error. When BB talks about the "extended market" I thought Extended Market Fund. (You may have heard him once again on tonight's opening fifteen minutes emphasize that there are still people out there who don't "hear" him about the Total Market Fund -- yeah, yeah just another coincidence... I know). No matter. The median market capitalization for Total Matrket Fund is $11.371b which means now to compare EITHER fund to the S & P 500 or Total Index Fund is not accurate. I am not whining nor are there any tears in my eyes when I make this statement, "Don." Doesn't BB seek accuracy in what he does? Doen't he seek perfection? Can't we discuss it openly, "Don," or are you trying to shame the thread into silence with insults and innuendo and then sweet talk it into submission?
|
