MSE News: House price rise predicted by MoneySavers

mewbie_2

I wish I hadn't bothered apologising now. Note to self - just makes things worse.

Cleaver

wageslave wrote: »

Her posts are anything but well written Cleaver. Ignore the content, concentrate on the language and come back and disagree with me if you can.
Using five words where one would do is misusing the language, not using it. Throwing in the odd latin phrase doesn't make it any more palatable.
I have read some bliddy great posts on here, posts where they have made the words sing and I have sat and hummed along with the tune in pleasure.
Quite a few of them have been yours.

Your last line is very nice wageslave. A complete lie of course, but very nice.

I thought a lot of her points about straight line thinking were really interesting. I also don't think she comes across as particulary bullish really, quite moderate in views, which I find quite refreshing on here. Look, I'm not her number one fan or anything, and didn't really want to get in discussion about this. I'm just saying that I enjoy reading her posts on here and, I guess, surprised others don't enjoy reading them whether they strongly agree or disagree with the content.

Cleaver

carolt wrote: »

Think you're confusing style and substance, dear. julie has plenty of the former, but none of the latter.

Look, let's leave discussing another poster in depth when they aren't here. I like reading many posters on here for many different reasons, including you miss carol. As I said, I think Julie's posts are interesting and add something to the board. 'tis all I'm saying.

Cleaver

nearlynew wrote: »

Thanks for the suggestion.

I'll bear it in mind.

You guys never quit do you?

Graham_Devon

Cleaver wrote: »

Your last line is very nice wageslave. A complete lie of course, but very nice.

I thought a lot of her points about straight line thinking were really interesting. I also don't think she comes across as particulary bullish really, quite moderate in views, which I find quite refreshing on here. Look, I'm not her number one fan or anything, and didn't really want to get in discussion about this. I'm just saying that I enjoy reading her posts on here and, I guess, surprised others don't enjoy reading them whether they strongly agree or disagree with the content.

Every single one of her posts explaining how you are wrong include some pull down about the "bears".

If she was moderate, she wouldn't have to refer to a whole group of people every time she writes a post and drag them down, often taking points completely out of context to do so.

She's most definately a bull, you can tell just by the way she refers to bears constantly and what her problems with them are.

If you find Julies posts interesting, cool. But you appear to be telling us we should too, which has started this.

nearlynew

Cleaver wrote: »

Look, let's leave discussing another poster in depth when they aren't here. I like reading many posters on here for many different reasons, including you miss carol. As I said, I think Julie's posts are interesting and add something to the board. 'tis all I'm saying.

Fine.

You carry on enjoying them.
But if someone else doesn't and they want to have a go at her, that's none of your business.

mewbie_2

Cleaver wrote: »

I also don't think she comes across as particulary bullish really, quite moderate in views, which I find quite refreshing on here.

This is partly the problem. From where I and some others sit, she comes across as incredibly bullish, but with a veneer of respectable 'considered' posting. Which actually makes the bullish VI message even worse.

It depends where you sit as to how the message is received / perceived.

carolt

Cleaver wrote: »

Look, let's leave discussing another poster in depth when they aren't here. I like reading many posters on here for many different reasons, including you miss carol. As I said, I think Julie's posts are interesting and add something to the board. 'tis all I'm saying.

I don't personally feel she adds anything in terms of content. I actually quite enjoy her style - it amuses me that someone puts that much effort into what is basically tripe. I enjoy the fact that her insults always take at least two paragraphs and aren't usually sexual.

However, as far as the economy/housing market analysis goes - nah, she's sub-Hamish.

And that is saying something.

nearlynew

Never use a long word when a more diminutive one will suffice.


(Yes, I know I posted that yesterday. But I like it)

joguest

Doomed I tell ye.

Really good time to buy a house:

a) when the ratio of the value to earnings is low relative to the mean (which they always follow despite julieq's misunderstanding of the difference between consumer and wage inflation and the fact that she dismisses actual stats and then says nobody is presenting any figures whilst she herself presents none).

and

b) when interest rates are high, because they're more likely to come down

Bad time to buy a house:

a) when the ratio of the value to earnings is well above mean

and

b) when interest rates are at an historic low, because they'll only go up.

Not difficult is it, unless you think, like julieq, that if economic forces don't force prices down (which of course they will) then the electorate in a liberal democracy will be quite happy to go back to the feudal age with the landed gentry and the serfs being happy knowing their place.

What do you do for a living julieq - are you a lawyer? - are you tony blair in disguise? All words and no substance.

Doomed, doomed, doomed, etc.