Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

POLL Would you like to see these additional investing boards?

Formerly "Lemon Fool - Improve the Recipe" repurposed as Room 102 (see above).

Would you like to see these additional investing boards?

The site would benefit from a "Value Shares" Board
46
37%
The site would NOT benefit from a "Value Shares" Board
9
7%
The site would benefit from a "Shares - Fundamental Analysis" board
42
33%
The site would NOT benefit from a "Shares - Fundamental Analysis" board
10
8%
Don't mind either way
18
14%
Other
1
1%
 
Total votes: 126

TheMotorcycleBoy
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3245
Joined: March 7th, 2018, 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 2222 times
Been thanked: 587 times

Re: POLL Would you like to see these additional investing boards?

#163119

Postby TheMotorcycleBoy » August 30th, 2018, 10:33 am

Lootman wrote:Moreover we will get HYP-style fights where one reader will complain that "You posted that on the FA board but it's really a more general discussion for Share Ideas" whilst another will assert that "You posted that on Share Ideas but you just did some FA". Or "You just criticised FA on the FA board - it should be elsewhere as I never want to read anything negative about FA". Do we really need more of that?

That wasn't what I had in mind.

But I'm a newcomer here, and as far as internet forums are concerned, I'm not as concerned as others re. the correct board, see here.

I don't mind continuing to post the questions I had to "Share Ideas", but as others would agree, sometimes that seems a little silly.

Matt

TheMotorcycleBoy
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3245
Joined: March 7th, 2018, 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 2222 times
Been thanked: 587 times

Re: POLL Would you like to see these additional investing boards?

#163120

Postby TheMotorcycleBoy » August 30th, 2018, 10:34 am

BTW I think I've said all I want to say on the subject now!

Gengulphus
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4255
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 am
Been thanked: 2628 times

Re: POLL Would you like to see these additional investing boards?

#163133

Postby Gengulphus » August 30th, 2018, 11:33 am

Lootman wrote:
Gengulphus wrote:I suspect that most Share Ideas readers aren't really all that interested in discussing P/BV - they'll probably have made their minds up about its value or otherwise years ago!

I.e. I think that the post was very largely off-topic for Share Ideas

It depends. If you see FA as some kind of world of its own, then you might feel that way. But in practice FA is often just one of several ways of assessing a share. And in that case the "Share Ideas" board is the right board because if you are discussing FA then you are probably applying that methodology to a particular share. You've suggested that readers don't want to see that discussion on Share Ideas but I for one would like that.

So if I want to perform some FA on, say, Tesco, readers might want to see that post on the same board as other posts about Tesco, and not in some new FA board. Because that way they get all their Tesco information in one place rather than two. And I probably have no interest in reading about FA in isolation to any particular share.

Moreover we will get HYP-style fights where one reader will complain that "You posted that on the FA board but it's really a more general discussion for Share Ideas" whilst another will assert that "You posted that on Share Ideas but you just did some FA". Or "You just criticised FA on the FA board - it should be elsewhere as I never want to read anything negative about FA". Do we really need more of that?

Whereas with TA it is perhaps more likely that I'd want to discuss graphs, charts and patterns in isolation to the underlying, because any security can be analysed in the same way. But with FA that doesn't make a lot of sense, at least not to me.

That's a matter of getting the subjects of the boards right, and part of the reason why I regard it as so important to get such things designed well. A fundamental analysis board should be about how to calculate fundamental ratios, what they do and don't generally tell you about the companies you apply them to, pitfalls to watch out for when using them, etc. They're tools / techniques that can be applied to look at any company, either independently of any strategy to try to get a picture of the company or with a particular strategy to see how well the company fits in with that strategy, just as technical analysis tools / techniques can be used to try to get a picture of the market in any security. So if someone wants to understand P/BV in general, maybe using a whole range of different companies as examples to help them understand it, then the fundamental analysis board would be the right place; if they want to discuss a specific share and talk about its P/BV (preferably among several other ways of looking at the company to get a more rounded view of it), Share Ideas would be the right place; if they want to talk about a specific share in the context of its place in a HYP strategy, HYP Practical would be the place for it.

It may very well be that because a fundamental analysis board's subject would essentially be generalities about fundamental ratios, either in isolation from any particular share or only using particular shares as examples, it will be of little interest to you. Fine - that's your choice, and you should be able to avoid reading it very easily, simply by not reading the board. But IMHO your preference for not reading generalities about fundamental analysis is no more a reason not to have such a board than (for example) my preference for not reading about sports is a reason for not having the Sports Bar.

On the "HYP-style fights", the solution to those is IMHO to be very strict about posts that say things like your examples "You posted that on the FA board but it's really a more general discussion for Share Ideas", "You posted that on Share Ideas but you just did some FA" and "You just criticised FA on the FA board - it should be elsewhere as I never want to read anything negative about FA". Basically, anything that says "You shouldn't have posted that here" in a purely negative way ought to be completely unacceptable in a post, because it's liable to set off a fight - only reporting the post or deciding that the matter is not worth pursuing at all should be acceptable. And even more constructive suggestions of a better place to post need to be treated with caution - e.g. if a newcomer asks about a share on HYP Practical and it becomes apparent that they want a wider range of replies than just ones from a HYP perspective, one might post to tell them (nicely!) that they're more likely to get what they want on Share Ideas than on HYP Practical. And one might repeat that once if they do it again, in case they missed it the first time. But if they go on doing it, one should either bring in the moderators with a report or give up, not become a nag about the subject!

I.e. basically, the way to get rid of "HYP-style fights" is to strongly discourage them from being ignited in the first place and put them out as quickly and thoroughly as possible whenever they do get ignited. The things ordinary users can do to help that are pretty limited, basically just doing their best to refrain from igniting them themselves or pouring oil on them (and anything negative about other users' posting behaviour is 'oil' in such a fight) and letting the moderators know so that they can use the far more effective tools at their disposal.

Finally, as regards your last point, yes, any security can be analysed the same ways by technical analysis. And with at most rare exceptions, any company (rather than security - that's basically why my preferred name for the board is "Fundamental Company Analysis") can be analysed the same ways by fundamental analysis. That doesn't mean that every fundamental ratio is of equal usefulness for all companies - for example, gearing is of very little use for banks and so is best not used on them. But the fact that such examples exist should be no more surprising than the fact that a saw is of little use for driving in a nail!

Gengulphus

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18681
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6564 times

Re: POLL Would you like to see these additional investing boards?

#163144

Postby Lootman » August 30th, 2018, 12:22 pm

Gengulphus wrote:basically, the way to get rid of "HYP-style fights" is to strongly discourage them from being ignited in the first place and put them out as quickly and thoroughly as possible whenever they do get ignited. The things ordinary users can do to help that are pretty limited, basically just doing their best to refrain from igniting them themselves or pouring oil on them (and anything negative about other users' posting behaviour is 'oil' in such a fight) and letting the moderators know so that they can use the far more effective tools at their disposal.

Perhaps, although those HYP fights have been going on for a long time so the idea that it easy to avoid them either doesn't seem valid or implies that TMF and TLF have not done the right things to prevent them.

Gengulphus wrote:Finally, as regards your last point, yes, any security can be analysed the same ways by technical analysis. And with at most rare exceptions, any company (rather than security - that's basically why my preferred name for the board is "Fundamental Company Analysis") can be analysed the same ways by fundamental analysis. That doesn't mean that every fundamental ratio is of equal usefulness for all companies - for example, gearing is of very little use for banks and so is best not used on them. But the fact that such examples exist should be no more surprising than the fact that a saw is of little use for driving in a nail!

I suppose what I meant is that with TA you can look at a chart and, without knowing what the security is, you can still read things into it. But with FA it can vary. For example a P/E ratio of 10 is high for some sectors but low for others. Without knowing what the share and sector is, the numbers might not make sense in isolation, in the way that a chart might.

All that said, the way you described what the FA board should be makes more sense to me than the broader way that I envisioned it.

melonfool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2939
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:18 am
Has thanked: 1365 times
Been thanked: 793 times

Re: POLL Would you like to see these additional investing boards?

#163174

Postby melonfool » August 30th, 2018, 2:06 pm

TA, to me, is the financial equivalent of having your bumps felt.

Mel

melonfool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2939
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:18 am
Has thanked: 1365 times
Been thanked: 793 times

Re: POLL Would you like to see these additional investing boards?

#163175

Postby melonfool » August 30th, 2018, 2:08 pm

Melanie wrote:
Lootman wrote:Moreover we will get HYP-style fights where one reader will complain that "You posted that on the FA board but it's really a more general discussion for Share Ideas" whilst another will assert that "You posted that on Share Ideas but you just did some FA". Or "You just criticised FA on the FA board - it should be elsewhere as I never want to read anything negative about FA". Do we really need more of that?

That wasn't what I had in mind.

But I'm a newcomer here, and as far as internet forums are concerned, I'm not as concerned as others re. the correct board, see here.

I don't mind continuing to post the questions I had to "Share Ideas", but as others would agree, sometimes that seems a little silly.

Matt


It's really important to have newcomers' feedback - we've all hung around this stuff far too long and can't see the logical flaws clearly.

Mel

Gengulphus
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4255
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 am
Been thanked: 2628 times

Re: POLL Would you like to see these additional investing boards?

#163204

Postby Gengulphus » August 30th, 2018, 4:47 pm

Lootman wrote:
Gengulphus wrote:basically, the way to get rid of "HYP-style fights" is to strongly discourage them from being ignited in the first place and put them out as quickly and thoroughly as possible whenever they do get ignited. The things ordinary users can do to help that are pretty limited, basically just doing their best to refrain from igniting them themselves or pouring oil on them (and anything negative about other users' posting behaviour is 'oil' in such a fight) and letting the moderators know so that they can use the far more effective tools at their disposal.

Perhaps, although those HYP fights have been going on for a long time so the idea that it easy to avoid them either doesn't seem valid or implies that TMF and TLF have not done the right things to prevent them.

A bit of a straw man - I didn't say it would be easy! I definitely don't think it would be, so to that extent I agree with you: the idea that it is easy to avoid them isn't valid. I also don't think either TMF or TLF have done the right things - I said that they would involve very strict moderation, and meant it! And I'm not saying that TLF should do them, just that I think TLF is stuck with "HYP-style fights" until and unless they do the required very strict moderation. It may well be that they've come to a considered decision not to do it because they feel the cure would be worse than the disease...

Gengulphus

AleisterCrowley
Lemon Half
Posts: 6381
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:35 am
Has thanked: 1880 times
Been thanked: 2026 times

Re: POLL Would you like to see these additional investing boards?

#163260

Postby AleisterCrowley » August 30th, 2018, 10:27 pm

melonfool wrote:TA, to me, is the financial equivalent of having your bumps felt.

Mel

TA=Tealeaf Analysis

TheMotorcycleBoy
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3245
Joined: March 7th, 2018, 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 2222 times
Been thanked: 587 times

Re: POLL Would you like to see these additional investing boards?

#163281

Postby TheMotorcycleBoy » August 31st, 2018, 6:33 am

melonfool wrote:
Melanie wrote:
Lootman wrote:Moreover we will get HYP-style fights where one reader will complain that "You posted that on the FA board but it's really a more general discussion for Share Ideas" whilst another will assert that "You posted that on Share Ideas but you just did some FA". Or "You just criticised FA on the FA board - it should be elsewhere as I never want to read anything negative about FA". Do we really need more of that?

That wasn't what I had in mind.

But I'm a newcomer here, and as far as internet forums are concerned, I'm not as concerned as others re. the correct board, see here.

I don't mind continuing to post the questions I had to "Share Ideas", but as others would agree, sometimes that seems a little silly.

Matt


It's really important to have newcomers' feedback - we've all hung around this stuff far too long and can't see the logical flaws clearly.

Mel

Thanks for this. I hope I didn't come across as being defeatist in my last couple of posts, but I just thought I had stated my views clearly enough, and thought it best that others continue towards making a final decision.

My main concern as a newcomer, is that I don't really have the experience that a lot of the other posters here do about investing or about the history of TMF to TLF, and hence the expectations of all those who have travelled that route already.

Generally, I agree with Gengulphus when he referred to the importance of design (and also etiquette later on). But part of doing that right, IMO, is a consideration of who the forum is being designed for, and what goals it sets out to accomplish. For example, is it intended to be attractive to newbies, or as a sequel to TMF, or both?

...

Additionally, others have mentioned not wanting to proliferate too many boards, but upon scrolling down the home page there are lots of random boards already, especially towards the bottom. But as pointed out - no one is forcing me to read them.

From a newcomer's perspective, I think having the random/banter boards at the bottom is a good thing. And having several of them is fine, because the reader is already scrolling down, so probably won't mind scrolling down some more. Which, again as a newbie, makes me wonder why "Lemon lounge" is right at the start of the home page.....why not further down with the other bantering areas? If I were googling for an investing forum as a complete beginner, I expect to be met with a board called "How do I invest", not "Biscuit bar" or "Beerpig's snug". Then were I to join the forum, and get more "into it", I might end up either bookmarking the exact sub-forum-area I like the most, or just knowing, out of familiarity to scroll down a few to get to my fave. All depends on who the site is being pitched at..... and, yes again, views from a newbie himself, so please take with a pinch of salt :lol:

Matt (and Mel!)

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18681
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6564 times

Re: POLL Would you like to see these additional investing boards?

#163297

Postby Lootman » August 31st, 2018, 8:24 am

Melanie wrote:Additionally, others have mentioned not wanting to proliferate too many boards, but upon scrolling down the home page there are lots of random boards already, especially towards the bottom. But as pointed out - no one is forcing me to read them.

The problem of board proliferation is not so much a problem for those who are merely browsing the boards or scrolling down through them on the home page. Except in cases where you have to look in more places to find a topic of interest, perhaps.

That is not a problem for me because the way I navigate the site is based on topics not boards. As I have said before I typically read or engage a topic without necessarily seeing which board it is on. In that sense it doesn't matter to me whether there is one board or a hundred.

Where it matters is when I decide to contribute to a topic. In general that is not a problem because, assuming that the topic is on the right board in the first place, then my responses will also be on the right board.

The problem is more where there are related or overlapping boards, and my comment is on-topic for one board and off-topic for the other. Even though my comment is relevant to what was being discussed, it might be moderated because my comment is deemed to be on the "wrong" board. So not only do I have to know which board the topic is on, I also have to be fully aware of what the rules are for that board.

This becomes harder the more intertwined the boards are. The obvious example where I and others trip up all the time is with the two HYP boards. That split goes back a decade or more and yet we still constantly see squabbles and moderation activity there based on topics and comments being in the "wrong" board of the two. Obviously something about that situation is not intuitive or persuasive. If there were only one HYP board that would not happen. There would then be the issue that there would be more topics on that board that are not of interest to an individual, but then topics can be ignored as easily as boards can.

My concern is that there is overlap between share ideas, FA and value. And that if we had all three then there would be a similar situation to HYP, only perhaps more so. Apparently there are just two boards that cause most of the moderation activity - Polite (politics) and HYP. We may end up with a third.

The one thing we all seem to agree on is that moderation is the key to keeping things distinct and clear. But do the volunteer moderators have the bandwidth and appetite for another set of boards needing constant care and attention? That is surely the key here.

IanTHughes
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1789
Joined: May 2nd, 2018, 12:01 pm
Has thanked: 730 times
Been thanked: 1117 times

Re: POLL Would you like to see these additional investing boards?

#163317

Postby IanTHughes » August 31st, 2018, 9:24 am

Lootman wrote:If there were only one HYP board


There is only one HYP board


ian

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18681
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6564 times

Re: POLL Would you like to see these additional investing boards?

#163318

Postby Lootman » August 31st, 2018, 9:29 am

IanTHughes wrote:
Lootman wrote:If there were only one HYP board


There is only one HYP board

Don't be cute. You know exactly what I meant.

IanTHughes
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1789
Joined: May 2nd, 2018, 12:01 pm
Has thanked: 730 times
Been thanked: 1117 times

Re: POLL Would you like to see these additional investing boards?

#163330

Postby IanTHughes » August 31st, 2018, 10:13 am

Lootman wrote:
IanTHughes wrote:
Lootman wrote:If there were only one HYP board

There is only one HYP board

You know exactly what I meant.


Yes, that is why I corrected you


Ian

gryffron
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3606
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:00 am
Has thanked: 550 times
Been thanked: 1586 times

Re: POLL Would you like to see these additional investing boards?

#163337

Postby gryffron » August 31st, 2018, 11:40 am

Gengulphus wrote:I.e. basically, the way to get rid of "HYP-style fights" is to strongly discourage them from being ignited in the first place and put them out as quickly and thoroughly as possible whenever they do get ignited.

The problem I see is that both HYP and Value were very strictly defined in their scope by the Motley Fool writers. Anyone from TMF should know that. But to a newcomer, it isn't at all obvious, and perhaps not very clear where the definitions come from. And it seems to me that scope is the cause of most of the arguments on HYP, and could be on Value too.

To a newcomer, it is seems perfectly reasonable to discuss a High yielding US share on a board called "High Yield Shares". Or perhaps a great growth share (referencing PEG) on "Value". But the (ex)TMF aficionados of such strategies would be horrified by such heresy.

Just because you know what you mean by something, doesn't mean everyone else understands it the same way.

Got to finish by saying that "Fundamental Company Analysis" means nothing to me. "The Analysis of Fundamental Companies" - what? Putting "Company" in middle of FA destroys the meaning. To me at least. In fact, type it into google, the entire phrase FCA is hardly ever used.

Gryff

TheMotorcycleBoy
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3245
Joined: March 7th, 2018, 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 2222 times
Been thanked: 587 times

Re: POLL Would you like to see these additional investing boards?

#163346

Postby TheMotorcycleBoy » August 31st, 2018, 12:59 pm

gryffron wrote:To a newcomer, it is seems perfectly reasonable to discuss a High yielding US share on a board called "High Yield Shares". Or perhaps a great growth share (referencing PEG) on "Value". But the (ex)TMF aficionados of such strategies would be horrified by such heresy.

Indeed. I'd already recognised this - and then sought clarification - i.e. HY == HDY.

But of course, the interface is kind of broken already, if boards only function correctly after posters have read and digested lots of "posting guidance" info. (And of course, that can be mitigated, by only offering access to the Guru boards to a restricted subset of your users).

gryffron wrote:Got to finish by saying that "Fundamental Company Analysis" means nothing to me. "The Analysis of Fundamental Companies" - what? Putting "Company" in middle of FA destroys the meaning. To me at least. In fact, type it into google, the entire phrase FCA is hardly ever used.

Yes the fundamental word got dropped in here. I was not overly sold on it's addition, but Geng went on to describe FA and TA etc. so I nodded my head, so to speak. And as I've pointed out to Melonfool, as a newbie I tended to just "go with the flow" to an extent.

Whenever I see a lot of verbage crop up, e.g. "fundamental" and "technical" I tend to worry, because they are just very bland words, which are bound to mean different things to differing audiences. But as I've already stated, "when in Rome, do as the Romans...."

Personally, if I ran the show :lol: I'd make those board names (for the investment stuff) much more friendly - and introduce hierarchy in order that the more context/audience specific stuff is less prominent.

So, again, if I ruled the world, something like "Technical analysis" would become "Market trend discussions" and the thing I was piping on about just "Annual report analysis". Or something. With necessary hierarchy present, and sub-headings, to allow drilling down into the sub-forum boards etc.

Matt

Raptor
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1621
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:39 pm
Has thanked: 139 times
Been thanked: 306 times

Re: POLL Would you like to see these additional investing boards?

#163358

Postby Raptor » August 31st, 2018, 2:10 pm

gryffron wrote:
To a newcomer, it is seems perfectly reasonable to discuss a High yielding US share on a board called "High Yield Shares". Or perhaps a great growth share (referencing PEG) on "Value". But the (ex)TMF aficionados of such strategies would be horrified by such heresy.

Just because you know what you mean by something, doesn't mean everyone else understands it the same way.


Gryff


You can post High Yield US shares on the High Yield Share & Strategies board? Do not understand where you got the impression that only UK shares could be discussed on there. Have you confused this with High Yield Portfolios where the guidance states
constituents of the FTSE 350 index

Of course we reuglarly have posters who have not read the guidance and moderators have to intervene, but that also happens on other boards where posters do not understand the "raison d'etre" for the board.

Raptor.

IanTHughes
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1789
Joined: May 2nd, 2018, 12:01 pm
Has thanked: 730 times
Been thanked: 1117 times

Re: POLL Would you like to see these additional investing boards?

#163369

Postby IanTHughes » August 31st, 2018, 3:34 pm

gryffron wrote:
Gengulphus wrote:I.e. basically, the way to get rid of "HYP-style fights" is to strongly discourage them from being ignited in the first place and put them out as quickly and thoroughly as possible whenever they do get ignited.

The problem I see is that both HYP and Value were very strictly defined in their scope by the Motley Fool writers. Anyone from TMF should know that. But to a newcomer, it isn't at all obvious, and perhaps not very clear where the definitions come from. And it seems to me that scope is the cause of most of the arguments on HYP, and could be on Value too.

To a newcomer, it is seems perfectly reasonable to discuss a High yielding US share on a board called "High Yield Shares". Or perhaps a great growth share (referencing PEG) on "Value".


In point of fact, a discussion of a high yielding US share is perfectly fine on the board called High Yield Shares, it is on the “High Yield Portfolio (HYP) – Practicalities” board where it would not be welcomed. (1)
gryffron wrote:But the (ex)TMF aficionados of such strategies would be horrified by such heresy.


Why do you feel the need to make your point claiming HYPers would be ”horrified and by referring to ”heresy

The constant reference to the HYP Strategy as some sort of religion and HYPers as “True Believers” or some such is one irritation that has nothing to do with newcomers to these boards.


Ian

(1) Personally, I would not be bothered by the inclusion of non-UK shares. As long as the High Yield and Long Term Buy and Hold are rigorously applied, why not foreign shares?

Wizard
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2829
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 8:22 am
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 1029 times

Re: POLL Would you like to see these additional investing boards?

#163387

Postby Wizard » August 31st, 2018, 4:13 pm

I agree with many of the comments made about the danger of increasing debates about which is the correct board to post a particular topic on, and for that reason I voted against new boards. Take Vodafone as an example, the yield is over 8% making it a subject of discussion on HYP Practical, it is also being discussed on High Yield Shares and Strategies, some in that latter discussion see it as a value play and this discussion may lead to some performing some fundamental analysis on the financials of the company. So we could end up with discussion of the same share in four places.

However, I see the majority favour the new boards and any such democratic process should be respected. In anticipation of the new boards I would make one request / suggestion. On the recent Dod's farewell mega thread one suggestion was to put HYP Practical, as a specialist board, lower down the menu of boards to avoid instinctive posting on it when the more general High Yield Shares and Strategies may be a better home. I do not recall any afguing against this (forgive me if I have forgotten such comments), but as yet nothing has happened about this. If new boards are created can it be used to have a fresh look at the ordering of boards in the menu, with the more general in scope boards nearer the top and the more specialist boards lower down?

Terry.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18681
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6564 times

Re: POLL Would you like to see these additional investing boards?

#163419

Postby Lootman » August 31st, 2018, 5:30 pm

IanTHughes wrote:
Lootman wrote:
IanTHughes wrote:There is only one HYP board

You know exactly what I meant.

Yes, that is why I corrected you

No, you "corrected" me to be petty and pedantic. The meaning was clear from the context. And in fact it is exactly that kind of pedantry that causes many of the HY squabbles in the first place.

Itsallaguess
Lemon Half
Posts: 9129
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:16 pm
Has thanked: 4140 times
Been thanked: 10023 times

Re: POLL Would you like to see these additional investing boards?

#163428

Postby Itsallaguess » August 31st, 2018, 6:15 pm

Lootman wrote:
IanTHughes wrote:
Lootman wrote:
You know exactly what I meant.


Yes, that is why I corrected you


No, you "corrected" me to be petty and pedantic. The meaning was clear from the context. And in fact it is exactly that kind of pedantry that causes many of the HY squabbles in the first place.


Moderator Message:
I think this particular discussion has run it's course, so can you both please take it to private PM's if you want to continue, rather than clutter this thread with your arguments...


Return to “Room 102 - Site Issues, Complaints & General Chat”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests