House Price Deflation - Who it affected

geneer

Pimperne1 wrote: »

Letting it slide? I don't think so. You said Columbo said it in 2005 and he didn't. The first link you can post to any member of the websites is in 2006 when you said they had been calling a soft landing since 2002.

Yeah, since corrected.
The quote I found was in 2006. So yet again, and? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

You seem to think that 2005 is some kind of magical cut off point.
For no apparent reason.

Pimperne1

geneer wrote: »

Oh, by the way, at what point did I say Nationwide, Columbo, Hamish and you were the sole bulls refered to in my assesment?
Because clearly, in the one out of context post thats getting you all excited, I was drawing attention to the nonsensical worth of your "neither" assertion.

You of course chose to put your own focussed spin on it,
and pull your todge joyously as you got a few posts of pedantry inspired confusion it caused.

Well done you.

Yes, only joking, you said the following were "bulls"

"The CML, Nationwide, Halifax, RICs, Columbo"

That's funnier still.

Pimperne1

geneer wrote: »

Yeah, since corrected.
The quote I found was in 2006. So yet again, and? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

You seem to think that 2005 is some kind of magical cut off point.
For no apparent reason.

2006 is the cut off point because that's the first time I can see any poster claiming that a "soft landing" is a possibility. Indeed anyone who said it before that is a nutter as prices went through the roof over that period.

geneer

Pimperne1 wrote: »

2006 is the cut off point because that's the first time I can see any poster claiming that a "soft landing" is a possibility. Indeed anyone who said it before that is a nutter as prices went through the roof over that period.

Ah. So its an arbitrary cut off point that you would like to be significant but is actually quite meaningless.

Well thanks for clearing that up pimp.

Yes the gambit of deciding meaningless things in your own head, and then arguing around that unstated meaningless criteria is clearly a worthwhile process.

geneer

Pimperne1 wrote: »

Yes, only joking, you said the following were "bulls"

"The CML, Nationwide, Halifax, RICs, Columbo"

That's funnier still.

Sorry what?

Pimperne1

geneer wrote: »

Ah. So its an arbitrary cut off point that you would like to be significant but is actually quite meaningless.

Well thanks for clearing that up pimp.
This whole process has been quite worthwhile.

Not too arbitrary. Find a link to any poster before 2006 and I will support your assertion that bulls have been calling a crash since the date that you prove it (and if that date is 2002 then so be it - the Nationwide prediction of a 10%+ rise doesn't count as first of all that's no soft landing and secondly its not a "bull" by most people's assessment)

geneer

Pimperne1 wrote: »

2006 is the cut off point because that's the first time I can see any poster claiming that a "soft landing" is a possibility. Indeed anyone who said it before that is a nutter as prices went through the roof over that period.

What, cos prices soft landed after 2006 did they?

But yes, you are right, anyone who called a soft landing before then where just as jaw droppingly wrong as those who called it after.

Pimperne1

geneer wrote: »

What, cos prices soft landed after 2006 did they?

But yes, you are right, anyone who called a soft landing before then where just as jaw droppingly wrong as those who called it after.

Difference being that we can find some people who called it after then but you have yet to provide evidence of those who called it back to 2002.

geneer

Pimperne1 wrote: »

Not too arbitrary. Find a link to any poster before 2006 and I will support your assertion that bulls have been calling a crash since the date that you prove it (and if that date is 2002 then so be it - the Nationwide prediction of a 10%+ rise doesn't count as first of all that's no soft landing and secondly its not a "bull" by most people's assessment)

Your support is not neccesary pimp. Thanks the same.
I've not limited myself to "posters". I'm discussing bulls.
Posters are bulls. VIs are bulls.
And I've provided of Bulls, be they VIs or Posters who have called the soft landing every year since 2002.

Just like it says on the can.

You seem to think single out of context example invalidates a general thesis. You are of course a foolish man.

geneer

Pimperne1 wrote: »

Difference being that we can find some people who called it after then but you have yet to provide evidence of those who called it back to 2002.

Aside from the link going back to 2002 you mean.

Sorry, are you now going to have a long pedantic argument about what "people" are?