Arborbridge wrote the following now-deleted post:
Arborbridge wrote:IanTHughes wrote:moorfield wrote:Wizard you should recognize Ian's unique style of thinking by now I would have thought.
Too right!
Abrdn Plc (SLA) was on a paltry yield of 5.46%
So replace it with:
Greencoat UK Wind Plc (UKW) on a yield of 5.49%?
idpickering certainly believes in squeezing out even the second decimal place of yield and to hell with the cost of trading!
Now that is an HYPer
Let's be fair here: rightly or wrongly, Ian has swapped what he considered to be a flaky 5.46% with a more reliable similar yield. That may not accord with your idea of a "old for eternity" HYP, but it is a valid decision within his own "peace of mind" framework. He does not deserve to have that decision lampooned by you simply because you choose to do things differently.
I responded with my own now-deleted post as follows:
IanTHughes wrote:Last May six holdings were sold off in one fell swoop! The annual "churn" on this portfolio as usually reported here indicates to me that the strategy being employed is certainly nothing like "hold for eternity"? This, if it can be called a strategy, is barely a "hold for next year"!Arborbridge wrote:I might also add that the decision to sell Aberwhotsit with its turbulent history will receive some widespread support from experienced investors such as Dod, whom I know Ian takes some notice of.
Assuming for a moment that the investing experience of Dod101 is appropriate, it is hardly surprising that someone who has self-declared as not agreeing with the HYP Strategy, is listened to by someone wanting to "churn" their portfolio on a regular basis!Arborbridge wrote:This is written by someone (me) who intends to hold on to Aberdeen despite it receiving thumbs downs from some people: this is my way. Ian has a different way, but I'm not criticising him for it because - as IAAG might say - peace of mind is an important factor in investment.
Quite right! An Investment Strategy followed by anyone should be respected.
But not all Investment Strategies are relevant on this HYP Practical board!
There then followed another exchange of now-deleted posts:
idpickering wrote:IanTHughes wrote:Arborbridge wrote:Ian was until a year or two back very much in the camp of changing slowly if at all- as I am. However, in some years many investors change things for various reasons - I've done this myself during a re-organisation
So, what you are saying in effect is that idpickering was once following the HYP Strategy but "a year or two back" that changed?Arborbridge wrote:TJH himself has had years of great change - so I am happy to cut Ian slack and not be too judgemental. There's no need to criticise him for what others here also practice.
The comments I made were in relation to the trading strategy being followed by idpickering. If you want me to also discuss the strategy being followed by tjh290623, can I respectfully suggest that you start an appropriate thread?Arborbridge wrote:No, Ian overall is following the guidelines: that's what I said, and what I meant.
And your criticism of IDP is in contrast with your silence with regard to TJH who probably trades even more: that was the point and it does not need a separate thread.
End of - as I mentioned, I'm not being drawn into a long jousting match with you as there would be no point and would ultimately only lead to deletions as on previous occasions.
I've made the point: people can form their own opinions what I've written on the matter.
Thanks Arb I'm very miffed that my thread has gone so far off topic. I find the other Ian's posts very offensive and have reported them. If this abuse continues, I'm off. I never much liked school ground bullies either. I can't believe this board has deteriorated so much. Mods, please intervene.
The above posts were then deleted!
I had not been informed as to why my posts had been deleted but, assuming that the deletion was as a result of one or more of the complaints voiced above by idpickering, I requested clarification from the moderator that I believed had been responsible for the deletions as follows:
IanTHughes wrote:In my defence I should like to respond as follows:
Off Topic
The thread was entitled “IDP's HYP as of 20 May 21”. My response was entirely devoted to that subject. At no point did I deviate from anything that the Original Poster, idpickering, had not himself posted on that thread.
Offensive
My post was of course critical of the strategy employed by idpickering but I am at a loss as to where I was “offensive”. Can you please advise me precisely where, in the text that I posted, I was “Offensive” not merely critical. If I agree, I shall of course apologise.
Abusive
If idpickering believes that criticism is “abusive”, I can only suggest that such a sensitivity is something that he should definitely work on if he wishes to post his thoughts on a forum such as this.
So, why were my posts deleted?
I thought I was posting on the "HYP Practical" board, I did not know that in reality it was the "Anything posted by the Sainted Pickering is fine here, even if it is total crap" board!
Seriously, I understand and applaud that criticism of the "HYP Strategy" is not permitted on the "HYP Practical" board. But surely criticism of how a particular poster puts HYP into effect must be allowed? If not, where can one post such criticism?
In response I was informed that:
What you wrote wasn't abusive or offensive. I don't agree with IDP's characterisation of them as that at all.
But taken together, and with Arb's additional contribution, they did add up to something of a personal attack
When I enquired further as to how one might “criticise” a poster in such a way that such a criticism does not “add up to something of a personal attack”?
The response was as follows:
As far as I'm aware, there's nowhere on the site that you can use to criticise another user
A short time later, the thread containing those deleted posts was locked with the following comment:
The OP has protested several times that it has wandered far from its original starting point, and yet again we're veering towards personal criticism.
It therefore seems to me that anyone can now post any gibberish they like on The Lemon Fool, comfortable in the knowledge that no-one will be allowed to criticise them personally. If any criticism is received, all one has to do is protest as to how it is “veering towards personal criticism” and, hey presto, the criticism is gone. Well, gone from other eyes maybe, but it will still be there nonetheless, believe you me.
Personally, I want nothing to do with a forum that will not allow users to post criticism of another user’s actions. It seems to me to destroy the whole point of providing a forum in the first place.
I think it is called “Going Woke”!
Ian
p.s. comments are welcome – assuming of course that The Lemon Fool still allows comments.