Bullish Bulls have been calling the "Soft Landing" every year since 2002.

chucknorris

chucky wrote: »

i'm sure that i've read somewhere on here that gingernuts refused to buy in Edinburgh in 2001 because he was expecting a crash and it was too expensive.

i wonder what he thinks of prices in 2011 compared to 2001... #gutted#

Is this why he seems obsessed with 2002? Surely it would have been a bear perdiction rather than a bull prediction of a 'soft landing' at that time.

geneer

chucky wrote: »

i'm sure that i've read somewhere on here that gingernuts refused to buy in Edinburgh in 2001 because he was expecting a crash and it was too expensive.

i wonder what he thinks of prices in 2011 compared to 2001... #gutted#

2006 chuckles.
And you're still wrong.

geneer

chucknorris wrote: »

Yes I was wrong geneer, and now my wife and I are lumbered with multiple profitable investment properties and a house without a mortgage. If only I had listened to you and rented a bedsit instead.

Again, you're refering to an unrelated subject, with a dash of strawman thrown in.

I of course was refering to the topic in the OP.

And you appear to be sans dummy again.

Rinoa

chucky wrote: »

i'm sure that i've read somewhere on here that gingernuts refused to buy in Edinburgh in 2001 because he was expecting a crash and it was too expensive.

i wonder what he thinks of prices in 2011 compared to 2001... #gutted#

He doesn't care to be reminded of that Chucky.

Think I'll put it in my sig. so he doesn't forget.

chucky

Rinoa wrote: »

He doesn't care to be reminded of that Chucky. :rotfl:

you can tell it's obviously a sensitive subject for him

chucknorris

geneer wrote: »

Again, you're refering to an unrelated subject, with a dash of strawman thrown in.

I of course was refering to the topic in the OP.

And you appear to be sans dummy again.

Well that's because your whole thread is irrelevant, what bull is going to say in 2002 there will be a soft landing? (that's not a retorical question, please elaborate! Who were they?). That statement would come from a bear, and only a bear would buy into it. Sounds like it came from that idiot, is his name Jonathan Davis who STR'd in 2002? He is a bear (and a stupid one at that).

I think we all know who the dummy is, you have to be one of the most idiotic posters frequenting this forum board currently.

Lets have it out right now by both of us staying on the topic in question about a soft landing in 2002, you start by saying exactly to what statement(s) you are referring to that were made in 2002, and by whom.

EDIT: Looks like you are not going to get back to me in time, I have to start cooking dinner soon (sirloin steaks with an extra one for our dog who was been with us for 5 years now, so it's his anniversary). So it will have to be tomorrow morning when I get back to you but please respond so I can myself respond to you tomorrow. This idiotic thread of yours needs addressing.

julieq

Give in Chuck, we all know we were calling soft landings. Crazy days they were, you'd get up in the morning, take a deep breath, and howl "SOFT LANDING FOR NEXT YEAR" at the top of your lungs. There's no point in denying it really.

chucknorris

julieq wrote: »

Give in Chuck, we all know we were calling soft landings. Crazy days they were, you'd get up in the morning, take a deep breath, and howl "SOFT LANDING FOR NEXT YEAR" at the top of your lungs. There's no point in denying it really.

You might have been but I certainly wasn't, 2005 was my tip for things to change, ok I got it wrong by a couple of years but it didn't really matter as I knew that i was in the market until about 2020-2025 anyway (and that is still the case).

But really the point is 'what is the point of this thread', what purpose is it serving? Property prices are higher now than they were in 2002, so why dwell back to then to dig this up? It's just a daft thread by an equally daft poster.

julieq

Well the thought was that if someone gets off from arguing, the best policy is to agree with them. It's almost impossible to argue with someone who agrees with you. Since no-one here was arguing for a soft landing, and by definition no bull would, it's obviously a ridiculous thread, but there's some fun to be had I fancy.

chucknorris

julieq wrote: »

Well the thought was that if someone gets off from arguing, the best policy is to agree with them. It's almost impossible to argue with someone who agrees with you. Since no-one here was arguing for a soft landing, and by definition no bull would, it's obviously a ridiculous thread, but there's some fun to be had I fancy.

I forgot to add a point I meant to make, which was due to the nature of the market I don't really believe in 'soft landings' I may be proved wrong by history but I think that we are doomed to a boom/bust cycle rather than a boom/flatline cycle.

Hats off to you, you are probably a lot more tolerant than me, don't get me wrong I can cope with most harmless idiots and mostly I will take the time to be gentle with them. But some of them just deserve to be dispatched.