Double posting on Company News and HYP-P

[Wizard]

* I am actually in that grey area, I hold more than 15 shares that could be in an HYP, so I could label that an HYP portfolio if I wanted to post on HYP-P. But the fact remains I tried HYP and it did not work for me, so I have now abandoned it as an investment approach, even though I still own all the shares I bought when I was following the HYP approach.

You obviously wish to disqualify yourself. If you want to requalify, then keep your claimed HYP shares in a separate jamjar and talk only about them on the HYP-P board.

It's not difficult.

TJH

To be honest I stopped posting on HYP-P before the new guidelines were issued, as I do not operate an HYP and do not favour it as an investment strategy I have nothing really to add on the running of one. I therefore have no interest in requalifying. All I want is for those who do post on the HYP-P Board to limit the discussion to the practical aspects of running an HYP, hence why I started this thread.

[onthemove]

To be honest I stopped posting on HYP-P before the new guidelines were issued, as I do not operate an HYP and do not favour it as an investment strategy (…) All I want is for those who do post on the HYP-P Board to limit the discussion to the practical aspects of running an HYP, hence why I started this thread.

Isn't this the crux of the problem?

If you're not operating a HYP and not in favour of HYPs as an investment strategy, then what the bleep does it matter to you what goes on on a board dedicated to people who are operating an HYP and are in favour of HYP as an investment strategy?

Why are you even joining the discussion about the board? Why are you even reading the board in the first place?

It'd be like me … someone with no interest in football … going along and hanging around a local football club, trying to tell the members what they should or shouldn't be doing, and trying to influence the rules of both football and rules of the club itself, and sticking my oar in all the time, even though I don't actually go on the field and play, nor watch any games, because I'm not actually interested in it.

Since I have no interest in football, I don't go hanging around the local football ground, and I let those who do have an interest pick and choose their own rules as they see fit. It's none of my business what rules they choose.

And I think that pretty much sums up the problem with the HYP practical board.

There are just too many people who aren't really interested, who haven't bought into HYP - literally and metaphorically speaking - and in many cases people who have clearly decided definitively against it, but for some reason can't seem to keep themselves away.

And imv, most of the problems on the HYP practical board stem from trying to find rules that deal with this very issue - how do you stop the board being disrupted by people who just aren't interested in running an HYP and don't favour it as an investment strategy, but who can't seem to keep away.

And yes, anyone posting who isn't running an HYP and isn't interested in a HYP is inevitably going to be disruptive / wearing / etc.

A football club wouldn't tolerate a cricket player who has no interest in football, hanging around challenging everything the football club does, trying to tell the football club how they should handle their meetings etc. They would probably ask why the cricketer isn't just going over to the cricket club and interacting with like minded people over there.

Nothing personal, it's just if cricket's your game, then the cricket club would be the better place to spend your time. And let the football club get on with what the football club want to do themselves.

[dealtn]

A football club wouldn't tolerate a cricket player who has no interest in football, hanging around challenging everything the football club does, trying to tell the football club how they should handle their meetings etc. They would probably ask why the cricketer isn't just going over to the cricket club and interacting with like minded people over there.

Nothing personal, it's just if cricket's your game, then the cricket club would be the better place to spend your time. And let the football club get on with what the football club want to do themselves.

And if the Football Club and Cricket Club shared the same Clubhouse, and at the bar one of the Football fans asked a question about Cricket, who would they want an answer from? If a Football fan was talking about the LBW rule to another Football fan, but had the rule wrong, would it be appropriate, or not, to clarify the LBW rule. If the Football fan was talking about the impact on sports economics of the coronavirus in a non-specific reference to Football, would it be helpful to provide a reference to how it was affecting Cricket?

To my mind we all share a Clubhouse, and can metaphorically drink and discuss aspects of "Sport" politely and respectfully, and perhaps learn things about each other. I'm not sure why there is a need to segregate.

[Wizard]

A football club wouldn't tolerate a cricket player who has no interest in football, hanging around challenging everything the football club does, trying to tell the football club how they should handle their meetings etc. They would probably ask why the cricketer isn't just going over to the cricket club and interacting with like minded people over there.

Nothing personal, it's just if cricket's your game, then the cricket club would be the better place to spend your time. And let the football club get on with what the football club want to do themselves.

And if the Football Club and Cricket Club shared the same Clubhouse, and at the bar one of the Football fans asked a question about Cricket, who would they want an answer from? If a Football fan was talking about the LBW rule to another Football fan, but had the rule wrong, would it be appropriate, or not, to clarify the LBW rule. If the Football fan was talking about the impact on sports economics of the coronavirus in a non-specific reference to Football, would it be helpful to provide a reference to how it was affecting Cricket?

To my mind we all share a Clubhouse, and can metaphorically drink and discuss aspects of "Sport" politely and respectfully, and perhaps learn things about each other. I'm not sure why there is a need to segregate.

Exactly!
If the football club sticks to football I agree with you onthemove. And that is exactly what I suggested where you quoted me. So I think we agree.

[Alaric]

And I think that pretty much sums up the problem with the HYP practical board.

The new rules may even be working as there haven't yet been any posts on HYP P this morning. There's one thread that may be of relevance, about dividends from UK FTSE 100 dividends but it starts from the remarks made by the management of an Investment Trust, so liable to be instantly labelled as off topic if posted on HYP P .

[CryptoPlankton]

And I think that pretty much sums up the problem with the HYP practical board.

The new rules may even be working as there haven't yet been any posts on HYP P this morning. There's one thread that may be of relevance, about dividends from UK FTSE 100 dividends but it starts from the remarks made by the management of an Investment Trust, so liable to be instantly labelled as off topic if posted on HYP P .

Eighteen posts yesterday without a hint of trolling (unless I missed any deletions) so I would agree that it's a case of " so far so good". I have seen a bit of gratuitous HYP-bashing on a couple of threads on High Yield Shares and Strategies, which has slightly interrupted the reading flow of the subjects concerned. Hopefully, people will begin to start separate threads if they want to discuss/criticise HYP there. Other than that, as long as all the (strangely obsessive, to my mind) meta-discussion is confined to here, I'd say it's looking like a step in the right direction.

[onthemove]

And if the Football Club and Cricket Club shared the same Clubhouse, and at the bar one of the Football fans asked a question about Cricket, who would they want an answer from? If a Football fan was talking about the LBW rule to another Football fan, but had the rule wrong, would it be appropriate, or not, to clarify the LBW rule.

The problem in my experience of HYP is that the non-footballers don't tend to ask questions out of genuine interest or politeness

Rather, they tend to ask questions that accentuate the negative. Effectively trying to chip away at the bits that aren't like cricket.

Questions more like ...

… doesn't heading the ball cause brain damage? Doesn't kicking the ball damage you ankles? Isn't it risky that you might injure yourself in a tackle? Why don't you only play on dry grass to avoid slipping or getting dirty? Why don't you make the game longer and make a few days out of it? Have you thought of using bats or similar to avoid impact damage when you strike the ball? Wouldn't stumps be easier to put in the ground than a full sized net? The net isn't much use if you miss the goal, the ball still goes outside the field, doesn't it?

… and also comparisons ... but doesn't cricket give a better overall total return in terms of enjoyment?

There may be a place at the bar where polite social discussion has its place... but normally in polite social discussion people tend to keep it positive and respect that the each other has made their mind up, so the questions are more like normal small talk, just asking about things they know the other person is genuinely interested in.

And when the discussion is actually about the rules and potentially changing them, it's usually considered respectful in those cases for those not interest to stay out of the discussion.

Exactly!
If the football club sticks to football I agree with you onthemove. And that is exactly what I suggested where you quoted me. So I think we agree.

And why is it for you to decide what is football?
Isn't it for the football club to decide for themselves what football is?

And to be honest, I don't agree. You say one thing, but my experience of your posts on HYP-practical is different...

I responded to this post of yours on HYP-P...

viewtopic.php?p=290104#p290104
"I suspect there is still more turbulence ahead. Still not comfortable buying. When I do I am not sure I will be trying to pick individual shares, that could be a big challenge that is beyond me."

I took your post at face value - believing you to be someone "still not comfortable buying", and took your comment about 'picking individual shares being a big challenge that was beyond you' to imply that you were a relatively inexperienced investor, and responded to it in good faith in that belief.

But you then later, now talking confidently in tickers like a pro and even talking about replicating the structure of one fund using a mix of other funds to manage costs, said (though this time on strategies, not practical)...

viewtopic.php?p=307752#p307752
"Yes I do remember, but then by 3rd April I was happy to purchase VAPX, VEUR, VFEM, VJPN and VNRT in the appropriate proportions to mimic VWRL but with lower fees. I bought an amount roughly equal to my whole HYP and currently show a profit of 13.5%. But I didn't mention it as it isn't an income investment."

And I'll be quite honest... it was that exchange that's largely pushed me even further away from the HYP practical board; it's that exchange which crystalized what I'd already been starting to feel about the board in general (that for most posters their HYP's are just part of a bigger portfolio which goes unspoken, and that usually means context is completely lost as you never know how dependent people are on their HYP for their income, and therefore crucially how to handle risk, and so on), and that triggered my previous comment on an earlier thread about sincerity on HYP-P.

When I responded to you on HYP-P, I genuinely believed you were an HYPer who was just nervous about buying in a falling market.

Turns out, you then admitted you'd bought loads of other stuff, in fact .. "an amount roughly equal to my whole HYP "... elsewhere in non-HYP investments, but didn't mention them.

And now you even claim that you "...do not operate an HYP and do not favour it as an investment strategy"

I'm sorry, but are you playing a different game altogether? (Neither cricket nor football?)

One minute I believe I'm talking to someone on HYP-P who's nervous about buying, the next minute apparently you "do not operate an HYP and do not favour it as an investment strategy".

And yet you want to tell people who do run HYP's how they should run the HYP practical board.

You said : "All I want is for those who do post on the HYP-P Board to limit the discussion to the practical aspects of running an HYP, hence why I started this thread."

That's quite different to just having a friendly chat at a shared clubhouse.

What are you going to do if you don't get what you want?

How determined are you to push through that the HYP-P board operates how *you* - a non-HYPer - want?

Anyway, for me, that exchange I mention above, has completely torpedoed my perception of the board. It just highlighted for me how you cannot know who you're responding to.

Which means any kind of advice, reassurance or encouragement type posts are pretty much out of the question. You can offer advice and comments to posters in good faith, only to be slapped around the face with it later because they weren't the persona you thought them to be.

[idpickering]

Quite frequently news items about shares are posted in that company's thread on the Company News Board, but also posted on HYP-P. There is nothing wrong with this in principle, however, the new guidance for HYP-P does mean that I think additional diligence is now required. Many posters on TLF are now not permitted to post on HYP-P as they are not HYP investors. Therefore I think it is now more important than ever that any discussion of the news item should be relevant only to the practical impact of running an HYP and more general discussion of the consequences of the news item should be on the Company News board. Otherwise some posters who may have valuable input may find themselves unable to contribute to aspects of the discussion.

All the more reason to tweak this new guideline for HYP-P. I must say "additional diligence" does suggest the emergence of a lynch mob atmosphere from some individuals determined to make trouble for the sake of it. Situation normal.

Agreed Arb. It appears that Wizard just likes causing trouble. I do not respond to his posts now as he’s not worth my time. I will however report this post myself for mod guidance. I can’t understand why he likes to cause such mayhem.

Ian.

[Wizard]

...And why is it for you to decide what is football?
Isn't it for the football club to decide for themselves what football is?

And to be honest, I don't agree. You say one thing, but my experience of your posts on HYP-practical is different...

I responded to this post of yours on HYP-P...

viewtopic.php?p=290104#p290104
"I suspect there is still more turbulence ahead. Still not comfortable buying. When I do I am not sure I will be trying to pick individual shares, that could be a big challenge that is beyond me."

I took your post at face value - believing you to be someone "still not comfortable buying", and took your comment about 'picking individual shares being a big challenge that was beyond you' to imply that you were a relatively inexperienced investor, and responded to it in good faith in that belief.

But you then later, now talking confidently in tickers like a pro and even talking about replicating the structure of one fund using a mix of other funds to manage costs, said (though this time on strategies, not practical)...

viewtopic.php?p=307752#p307752
"Yes I do remember, but then by 3rd April I was happy to purchase VAPX, VEUR, VFEM, VJPN and VNRT in the appropriate proportions to mimic VWRL but with lower fees. I bought an amount roughly equal to my whole HYP and currently show a profit of 13.5%. But I didn't mention it as it isn't an income investment."

And I'll be quite honest... it was that exchange that's largely pushed me even further away from the HYP practical board; it's that exchange which crystalized what I'd already been starting to feel about the board in general (that for most posters their HYP's are just part of a bigger portfolio which goes unspoken, and that usually means context is completely lost as you never know how dependent people are on their HYP for their income, and therefore crucially how to handle risk, and so on), and that triggered my previous comment on an earlier thread about sincerity on HYP-P.

When I responded to you on HYP-P, I genuinely believed you were an HYPer who was just nervous about buying in a falling market.

Turns out, you then admitted you'd bought loads of other stuff, in fact .. "an amount roughly equal to my whole HYP "... elsewhere in non-HYP investments, but didn't mention them.

And now you even claim that you "...do not operate an HYP and do not favour it as an investment strategy"

I'm sorry, but are you playing a different game altogether? (Neither cricket nor football?)

One minute I believe I'm talking to someone on HYP-P who's nervous about buying, the next minute apparently you "do not operate an HYP and do not favour it as an investment strategy".

And yet you want to tell people who do run HYP's how they should run the HYP practical board.

You said : "All I want is for those who do post on the HYP-P Board to limit the discussion to the practical aspects of running an HYP, hence why I started this thread."

That's quite different to just having a friendly chat at a shared clubhouse.

What are you going to do if you don't get what you want?

How determined are you to push through that the HYP-P board operates how *you* - a non-HYPer - want?

Anyway, for me, that exchange I mention above, has completely torpedoed my perception of the board. It just highlighted for me how you cannot know who you're responding to.

Which means any kind of advice, reassurance or encouragement type posts are pretty much out of the question. You can offer advice and comments to posters in good faith, only to be slapped around the face with it later because they weren't the persona you thought them to be.

I think this is heading off topic, but a large part of the quote above seems to be on the verge of character assassination, so I feel I have a right of reply.

I have never called myself inexperienced or an expert. When I started building an HYP and posted about it on the HYP-P board I was always transparent that it was an experiment which I was carrying out to see if HYP could act as a hedge for my existing bond and preference share holdings. As an experiment I was clear I was committing a small proportion of my capital to it. If you were on TMF before TLF you may have seen me on the Banking Board during the financial crisis, as that is when I built up a large part of my fixed income portfolio, making fairly large bets on distressed instruments. I was also on the, now defunct, Mark Taber board when Co-Op bank was in trouble and now have a large holding of Co-Op bonds that came out of the restructuring of Co-Op bank instruments, again, that was a pretty big bet.

My comment on the HYP-P Board that I saw more turbulence ahead and did not know which shares to buy was genuine. It was posted on 12th March on a thread on HYP-P titled "What are you buying today?". Almost a month later I was happier the markets had stabilised a little, but was still not clear which share I should best buy, so I bought trackers. If I had posted that on HYP-P I would have been completely off topic.

As for "...talking confidently in tickers like a pro and even talking about replicating the structure of one fund using a mix of other funds to manage costs..." go look at a thread on Passive Investing called "Vanguard VWRL - the one stop solution?", you will see in January to March 2019 I picked up on an idea by Lootman for replicating VWRL at a lower cost by making some calculations and ultimately explaining I had set up a virtual holding on HL to track the degree of alignment over time. So it should be no surprise that I used the approach I did.

But you are right, it is hard to get beyond the words in a post to the motive behind them. I perceived your statement on the second thread you link to about the performance of your FTSE ETF buy as crowing about how clever you were, so to be honest my response was an effort to show you that you had not been that clever. Maybe I misunderstood your motive.

You mention I say I am not an HYPer but also say I have an HYP. Recently I made clear on HYP-P that my HYP experiment had, as far as I was concerned, run its course and the result was that I did not see HYP as a good way to hedge inflation on my wider portfolio. But I still hold all the shares I bought, so whether I have an HYP is I guess a definitional point.

Finally, you suggest I have no right to have a view on what HYP-P should cover. Well I have absolutely no interest how HYP-P is run or what is said, if it sticks to the subject matter defined in the first sentence of the objective in the new guidelines "The objective of this board is to be a place for investors who have decided to take a HYP approach to investing to discuss the practical decisions and activities involved...". But I do feel I have a legitimate reason to say I do not think it should be allowed to 'make a land grab' and cover many other topics that I may like to discuss and which are not the exclusive preserve of HYPers.

[onthemove]

Well I have absolutely no interest how HYP-P is run or what is said, if it sticks to the subject matter defined in the first sentence of the objective in the new guidelines

And there I go again.

I do apologise, clearly I've misunderstood you yet again!!!

I didn't realise you were a board moderator, or owner, or someone related to running the site.

Please accept my apology.

" But I do feel I have a legitimate reason to say I do not think it should be allowed to 'make a land grab' and cover many other topics that I may like to discuss and which are not the exclusive preserve of HYPers.

If there are other topics you may like to discuss, there are plenty of other boards on the site, and I'm sure that you, as a moderator or owner or whatever (I must admit I'm confused as to which you are), will clearly have the power to create a new one if needed.

HYP-P isn't the only board on the site and new boards can be added I believe.

But I suspect you'll now tell me you already know that as well...

Which then leave me confused as to why it bothers you so much if the HYP board dare expand its scope just little, if you already know other boards can be created for things you want to discuss.

[Wizard]

Well I have absolutely no interest how HYP-P is run or what is said, if it sticks to the subject matter defined in the first sentence of the objective in the new guidelines

And there I go again.

I do apologise, clearly I've misunderstood you yet again!!!

I didn't realise you were a board moderator, or owner, or someone related to running the site.

Please accept my apology.

" But I do feel I have a legitimate reason to say I do not think it should be allowed to 'make a land grab' and cover many other topics that I may like to discuss and which are not the exclusive preserve of HYPers.

If there are other topics you may like to discuss, there are plenty of other boards on the site, and I'm sure that you, as a moderator or owner or whatever (I must admit I'm confused as to which you are), will clearly have the power to create a new one if needed.

HYP-P isn't the only board on the site and new boards can be added I believe.

But I suspect you'll now tell me you already know that as well...

Which then leave me confused as to why it bothers you so much if the HYP board dare expand its scope just little, if you already know other boards can be created for things you want to discuss.

One simple question. Why, when the site Admin (who, to the best of my knowledge, I am not related to) defines what the objective of a board is, do you think it is OK to ignore that?

[dealtn]

...

For the sake of brevity I haven't quoted the long post, but I think it should be clear enough to follow.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying and describing (though not the specific example in the second half your post, about which I have no knowledge).

I think we all want a happy Clubhouse where a range of (poilite) discussions can take place, and I think anyone can politely participate in any particular sub-Clubhouse, respecting the rules and guidelines about what is permissible. I don't think anyone here has a particular opposition to that.

However on occasions, and perceptions may differ on the frequency and degree here, inappropriate behaviours are occurring. Firstly we should all have some sense of self-moderation, then perhaps collective moderation, and ultimately site moderation (including suspensions and bans I suppose) to police this.

Given the issue has persisted for so long I think consensus might be that this hasn't worked so an alternative has been seen as the remedy, and the Board guidelines amended to reflect this.

My concern is that whilst there is a general agreed consensus across the site that contributors should "play the ball not the man" when disagreeing, this particular amendment in effect is not just playing the man, but red carding and permanently banning "Cricketers", even when they aren't guilty of any offence. As such "sensible" contributions, which you (and hopefully others) seem to deem agreeable in the examples above, can no longer take place. It is not just detrimental to the feelings of the "Cricketers" but also of potential detriment to the future knowledge of the "Footballers" as a result.

The site as a whole has self-inflicted itself with an injury here in my opinion.

I will respect the new guidelines, as I respected the previous ones, but stronger enforcement of "man-playing" incidents, and less on "ball playing" would be a preferred approach.

In addition, and I think the general thrust of this thread, it would be beneficial if all sportsmen, whether they enjoy a single or multiple sports, ensure where possible threads are started in the right place, not just at the "football" bar despite that being a regular habit.

[onthemove]

One simple question. Why, when the site Admin (who, to the best of my knowledge, I am not related to) defines what the objective of a board is, do you think it is OK to ignore that?

Who's ignoring it?

And if you find someone is ignoring it, what are you going to do?

Report them to the police?

MI5?

Tip off the FBI?

Raise it with the United Nations?

Haul them in front of the ECJ?

I'd be really interested to know!

Please feel free to have the last word...

[Alaric]

Which then leave me confused as to why it bothers you so much if the HYP board dare expand its scope just little, if you already know other boards can be created for things you want to discuss.

If posters are going to have posts deleted on HYP-P for being even mildly critical of the ideas behind "The HYP Strategy", is it a surprise that they choose to post elsewhere?

[Wizard]

...I'd be really interested to know!

Please feel free to have the last word...

You obviously have some experience at trying to win arguments online as a phrase like that is a device designed specifically to put the person you are arguing with in an impossible position. Decline to respond and you got the last blow in and will think you have 'won', respond and they have done what you said they would so you think you have 'won'. Other than pointing out your deployment of this rather transparent tactic I will withdraw from the field now as it is clear we will not agree.

[Arborbridge]

To be honest I stopped posting on HYP-P before the new guidelines were issued, as I do not operate an HYP and do not favour it as an investment strategy (…) All I want is for those who do post on the HYP-P Board to limit the discussion to the practical aspects of running an HYP, hence why I started this thread.

Isn't this the crux of the problem?

If you're not operating a HYP and not in favour of HYPs as an investment strategy, then what the bleep does it matter to you what goes on on a board dedicated to people who are operating an HYP and are in favour of HYP as an investment strategy?

Why are you even joining the discussion about the board? Why are you even reading the board in the first place?

Well said onthemove, straight to the point.

Arb.

[Arborbridge]

Please feel free to have the last word...

Oh he will, he will. Never knowingly satisfied with letting a discussion rest even having been round the block ten times.

Arb.

[GoSeigen]

...I'd be really interested to know!

Please feel free to have the last word...

You obviously have some experience at trying to win arguments online as a phrase like that is a device designed specifically to put the person you are arguing with in an impossible position. Decline to respond and you got the last blow in and will think you have 'won', respond and they have done what you said they would so you think you have 'won'. Other than pointing out your deployment of this rather transparent tactic I will withdraw from the field now as it is clear we will not agree.

On the contrary this makes one question Wizard's motives. It is clear he sees this as a battle, whereas one should assume good faith: perhaps the other poster is genuinely allowing the last word, either because he is simply fed up of the discussion or because he recognises that replying might indefinitely prolong the argument.

The fact onthemove stated it was his last contribution can be seen as a courtesy, letting the other party know that he is unlikely to get any further answers and letting other posters know why he is no longer participating in the discussion.

I think it's really bad form to ascribe base intent where it is not warranted... not to mention ignoring completely the poster's questions which he stated clearly he was interested in. I'm also interested. Why is Wizard setting himself up as some sort of policeman of the HYP Practical board. Is he a moderator? If so, why not just make a neutral statement in a moderator box?


GS

[Arborbridge]

...I'd be really interested to know!

Please feel free to have the last word...

You obviously have some experience at trying to win arguments online as a phrase like that is a device designed specifically to put the person you are arguing with in an impossible position. Decline to respond and you got the last blow in and will think you have 'won', respond and they have done what you said they would so you think you have 'won'. Other than pointing out your deployment of this rather transparent tactic I will withdraw from the field now as it is clear we will not agree.

On the contrary this makes one question Wizard's motives. It is clear he sees this as a battle, whereas one should assume good faith: perhaps the other poster is genuinely allowing the last word, either because he is simply fed up of the discussion or because he recognises that replying might indefinitely prolong the argument.

The fact onthemove stated it was his last contribution can be seen as a courtesy, letting the other party know that he is unlikely to get any further answers and letting other posters know why he is no longer participating in the discussion.



I think it's really bad form to ascribe base intent where it is not warranted... not to mention ignoring completely the poster's questions which he stated clearly he was interested in. I'm also interested. Why is Wizard setting himself up as some sort of policeman of the HYP Practical board. Is he a moderator? If so, why not just make a neutral statement in a moderator box?


GS

GS I'm afraid this is quite typical, and it's happened to me a couple of times. One can walk away from an argument when it is obvious that it has become circular rather than because one has failed to convince, but that doesn't guarantee the other fellow will take the hint and quite the field too.

This thread is quite interesting in that we now have clear sight of someone who admits he isn't interested in the subject of HYP-P yet continues to try to dictate play there. In that case, I would venture to suggest his motives are rather more that he loves a good argument rather than holding the welfare of the HYP-P board dear to his heart as others do. Hopefully, this transparency from him will lead to his opions being given a little less credance, however vociferously they are defended.

Arb.

[idpickering]

To be honest I stopped posting on HYP-P before the new guidelines were issued, as I do not operate an HYP and do not favour it as an investment strategy (…) All I want is for those who do post on the HYP-P Board to limit the discussion to the practical aspects of running an HYP, hence why I started this thread.

Isn't this the crux of the problem?

If you're not operating a HYP and not in favour of HYPs as an investment strategy, then what the bleep does it matter to you what goes on on a board dedicated to people who are operating an HYP and are in favour of HYP as an investment strategy?

Why are you even joining the discussion about the board? Why are you even reading the board in the first place?

Well said onthemove, straight to the point.

Arb.

Agreed. Also with your previous post, which I humbly rec. Well said Arb.

Ian.