Usually any posts or articles I write more or less run in line with
Ron Popeil’s famous line of “Set it and forget it.” However this last
post had me thinking later in the evening.
One of the site’s I contribute on a regular basis (SlopeofHope.com)
posted my article “Uncle Warren” later that evening. The host of the
site Tim Knight of Prophet® charts fame who also owns, and runs the
renowned Slope of Hope financial blog (which by the way is one of the
webs best financial blog communities to be found on the web anywhere)
recently made a statement he personally was no longer writing any
articles of disagreement that were ad hominem-style attacks in nature. The more I
though about the article; the more irked I became at myself. Almost as
much as I was when writing about the subject matter. Which bugged me
even more.
The more I thought about it the more I felt maybe I should follow his
example. Although I have nothing to apologize for, it’s the idea that;
was I taking a shot intentionally at someone just for the sake of an
article?
Actually I wasn’t. It was the idea of people not thinking and
following lockstep with people because the media puts them out front in a
venue that far too many feel uncomfortable questioning the motives or
reason behind the actions because of celebrity. i.e., “Vote for this
candidate because this rock star says so.”
As I said in the article I respect Mr. Buffett, and what he has
accomplished, but just like a rock star saying “vote for this
candidate,” I get annoyed by the chorus that somehow screams out to
validate their points and intellectually tries to intimidate anyone who
questions their reasoning.
It can drive me crazy at times because I know far too many, and
talked to even more about disastrous decisions they’ve made based on
what they thought was “advice” given from some touted celebrity. (Not
for nothing but I actually have personal friends that are actual rock
stars with 4 Grammy nominations. To me they’re just guy’s I grew up
with, but to others forgettaboutit! So on that subject I know a little
more than most on how celebrity changes peoples view.)
So what I did was send Mr. Knight an email saying I had forgotten his
pledge, and although I didn’t need to apologize I thought it was only
right to try mirroring his pledge because if I was even thinking about
it, then he must have a point. And I’m always up for self-improvement
especially if maybe I’m the one who could use a little. (We all can.
Only the arrogant think they never do.)
So with having some free time I decided to read the comments under my
article. Well let’s just say a few things caught my eye. First off
someone correctly pointed out I spelled Mr. Buffett’s name wrong. When I
looked it wasn’t just once but multiple times throughout the article.
(No excuse, that was sloppy of me.)
As many of you know I have a hard time spelling kat without spell
checker to bring it to my attention. But writing an article is about
success, in other words actually getting it written rather than
perfection of grammar or spelling. It’s the ideas that count and I don’t
doubt for a minute readers don’t understand that.
Usually when I meet someone and they say “Do you know you had 3
typos? As if they’re the elected grammar police. I normally reply,
“Actually there were 5.” That usually ends the conversation right there.
But as I continued reading there was one who seemed intent on
throwing cold water over my article. I have pretty thick skin, and you
need to have it in my line of work. 10% of any room I enter to speak
automatically has decided I know nothing and are intent to prove it any
chance they get before they’ve heard me speak or read my work. That’s
why those “smile sheets” speakers ask to be filled out are worthless.
What I noticed as I read the comments was they were actually proving
my point on what I try to express. (i.e., not understanding the real
issue or implications) Here’s an example: Remember the Bruce Willis and
Apple® article I posted a while back? Supposedly Mr. Willis was suing
Apple over his iTunes® collection. At the time this story was being
reported everywhere, and it brought up a point I stated could change the
relationship with Apple’s iTunes and customers in detrimental ways. It
seems the story as originally reported may not be correct. Mr. Willis
may or may not actually sue, however the reason for his outrage has not
been settled and still stands. Who owns your iTunes collection? You? Or
Apple? Whether Mr. Willis sues or not the crux of my argument is still
at hand and not answered. Yet this person wants to pass it off as my
“fact checking” is in need of repair. Again my article and points made
still stand. Only thing known currently is Mr. Willis is not suing. The
question remains. And one should be able to answer it. But as of today –
you can’t.
Another point made was my reference to Mr.Chanos not making blanket
statements on “just raise my taxes” in the fashion Mr. Buffett does. He
posted statements, and sources to show how I was off base and don’t
check facts. It’s understandable how one could think that way, however
if you read the article, I thought I was making it quite clear that yes
Mr. Chanos makes the arguments on raising taxes. However he details very
thoroughly when he makes his arguments, what, where, why, and by how
much he feels would be fair. He argues point for point why interest
carried this way or that way is unfair. Why a fireman or teacher
shouldn’t have to pay this or that, and just because of loopholes
someone pays near zero as opposed to a middle class worker paying 30,
40, 50 or even more.
However what I was trying to get across was the absolute empirical
difference between the two: One hasn’t already sheltered ALL their
wealth from taxes, while currently fighting a BILLION dollar tax
litigation fight as he’s touted and being cheered across the media with
blanket statements like “my secretary pays more than I do.” as some
defense of credibility.
Understanding the difference between the two is what is critical to
critical thinking. The statements posted if said identically by both men
have a different weight in their validity of argument. I thought that
was self evident in my article. But I guess it wasn’t as clear as I
thought.
So as we go into this holiday period I feel gladdened I actually
wrote the article the way I did in the first place because it did two
things: Made me try to live up to a higher standard unknowingly
impressed on me by others I respect. (Tim Knight) While at the same time
even if someone wants to cut my reasoning, or arguments apart I don’t
mind. Because if I can’t repeat, or restate what I said or why I said
it. I’d have no credibility with anyone. And it would show, as it
should.
I respect you the reader far too much to ever just say something and
not live by it or mean it. Like others I might write about. (Sorry,
couldn’t resist!)
And just one final note. When I first emailed Mr. Knight explaining
my decision to follow his standard with trying not to write using ad
hominem references when possible he graciously replied back. Also noting
I spelled ad hominem – ad homonym. Doh!
© 2012 Mark St.Cyr www.MarkStCyr.com
