House Price Deflation - Who it affected

Pimperne1

geneer wrote: »

You doubt the usual VIs are considered to be bullish. :rotfl:
Woof. There goes your credibility.

As to the 13% Naturally the question has already been addressed.
But you just keen on pretending this hasn't been asked and answered already pimperdoodle.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=43636280&postcount=153


Columbo. Okay dokay.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=42724644&postcount=134

Lets not consider posting on topic pimp.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3133650
Cos then it would become clear how reliant you are on the patented bull "reset button" and what a vacuous, empty suit you really are.;)

Going to have to be a bit more explicit Gneer. Is there a post of Columbo/Rinoa predicting a soft landing in 2005 or before?

geneer

Pimperne1 wrote: »

Going to have to be a bit more explicit Gneer. Is there a post of Columbo/Rinoa predicting a soft landing in 2005 or before?

No. You're going to have to be less useless pimperni1.
Link was provided. Again.

Pimperne1

geneer wrote: »

No. You're going to have to be less useless pimperni1.
Link was provided. Again.

Thought not. So your assertion that the "bulls" have been predicting a soft landing since 2002 rests on Columbo saying in 2006 that a soft landing was likely. Sorry, wouldn't stand up in court.

robmatic

geneer wrote: »

Average prices yeah.
Is it fair to say that average prices effected, basically, no one.

I think most will understand the point I'm making.
Maybe not the pimperni1.

I doubt that a 'Debate The Price That Your House Sold For' message board would be all that interesting...

Thrugelmir

robmatic wrote: »

I doubt that a 'Debate The Price That Your House Sold For' message board would be all that interesting...

Selling your house is worth a twitter in the current market.

geneer

Pimperne1 wrote: »

Thought not.

Well clearly clicking a link and scrolling down a few lines was too complicated for you.

Pimperne1 wrote: »

So your assertion that the "bulls" have been predicting a soft landing since 2002 rests on Columbo saying in 2006 that a soft landing was likely.

:rotfl:Nope. In no way whatsoever.

Pimperne1 wrote: »

Sorry, wouldn't stand up in court.

Why would it?

Pimperne1

geneer wrote: »

Well clearly clicking a link and scrolling down a few lines was too complicated for you.



:rotfl:Nope. In no way whatsoever.



Why would it?

Just post a link to Columbo predicting a soft landing in 2005 or before and I will admit that you have been able to establish that a well known bull predicted a soft landing in 2005 or before (although, unless you find one from 2002, how that helps your theory that "bulls" have been predicting one since 2002 is beyond me).

geneer

Pimperne1 wrote: »

Just post a link to Columbo predicting a soft landing in 2005 or before and I will admit that you have been able to establish that a well known bull predicted a soft landing in 2005 or before (although, unless you find one from 2002, how that helps your theory that "bulls" have been predicting one since 2002 is beyond me).

But your assertion that VIs like Nationwide and Halifax et al weren't/aren't bulls is obvious bobbins.

Your assertion that those who predict a soft landing are by definition not bulls is poppycock. The soft landing was a bullish fabrication, created by bulls and used by bulls.

Your assertion that no bull ever predicted a soft landing prior to the crash is nonsense. Because we all remember they did.

You seem to be suggesting that as 1 poster didn't use the word "predict" in one post, my thesis, for which there is significant supporting evidence, is false.

Even then, just for a laugh, I provided a link, from 2005 in which Columbo was bigging up the soft landing. So clearly Columbo considered the "soft landing" a good bet. Clearly he was calling it.

So even with your one spurious condition, you've failed.
You are, of course, being a bit of a norbert.

geneer

geneer wrote: »

Columbo. Okay dokay.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=42724644&postcount=134

COLUMBO:

This is just the market that property professionals want Doc. A soft landing after many years of HPI in which most of the population made a 50% tax free windfall on their homes. (Sorry you missed out)
Steady as she goes is welcome and acceptable.

There you are pimperdoodle.

Pimperne1

geneer wrote: »

But your assertion that VIs like Nationwide and Halifax et al weren't/aren't bulls is obvious bobbins.

Your assertion that those who predict a soft landing are by definition not bulls is poppycock. The soft landing was a bullish fabrication, created by bulls and used by bulls.

Your assertion that no bull ever predicted a soft landing prior to the crash is nonsense. Because we all remember they did.

You seem to be suggesting that as 1 poster didn't use the word "predict" in one post, my thesis, for which there is significant supporting evidence, is false.

Even then, just for a laugh, I provided a link, from 2005 in which Columbo was bigging up the soft landing. So clearly Columbo considered the "soft landing" a good bet. Clearly he was calling it.

So even with your one spurious condition, you've failed.
You are, of course, being a bit of a norbert.

Just show me the Columbo post bigging up the soft landing in 2005 - honestly I missed it and will give you some credit when I see it.