House prices fall £5,000 in year to September

DervProf

Zoran_Ilievski wrote: »

Bulls always overestimate the expected gains, and bears always overestimate the expected falls. Human nature.

Not always, but you make a good point.

IveSeenTheLight

Zoran_Ilievski wrote: »

Bulls always overestimate the expected gains, and bears always overestimate the expected falls. Human nature.

The problem with labelling people bulls and bears is that it generalises instead of looking at what they are saying.

I'm generally bullish about property given my interpretation of the factors affecting it, however I predicted a 1.5% fall this year.

Am I bull or bear? I would say neither right at the moment as stagnation seems to be the order

geneer

RenovationMan wrote: »

I don't think I have 'banged on' in derogatory terms, personally, so I don't believe I'm a member of your 'you guys' pigeon-hole, but if it makes you feel happier to group people together then go ahead.

Thanks.

RenovationMan wrote: »

My view is that it's dangerous to put all of your money into any single asset, whether it's precious metals, property or magic beans. I think you'll find that I also post warnings to people thinking of investing soley in BTL for their pensions.

Right you are then. Though of course what you actually said was.

RenovationMan wrote: »

I heard somewhere that Gold or Silver is a great investment. I forget where I heard it so I'm afraid I can't find a link for you. Rest assured though, its a great investment because why else would one person log on with multiple usernames to say its a great investment and then agree with himself that it was a great investment if it wasn't a great investment?

Perhaps your core message of balanced investment was too subtle in that one.

RenovationMan wrote: »

You made the statement: "you guys act like its not an asset which can be readily sold when the time is right. Unlike, say, a house." to try and argue that I'm hypocritical in my investment stance - being against putting money into a semi-illiquid asset like Gold but not being against putting it into an illiquid asset like property. I pointed out that you were incorrect, I know that both are assets but that I don't 'invest' in either.

Being unaware of your investment stance at that point I am unsure as to how I could be attempting to argue it was hypocritical.

RenovationMan wrote: »

I totally agree, hence why I question the point of them doing it.

Couldn't find a question mark in your original statement either.

RenovationMan wrote: »

You were stating that Gold had done really well since 2007 to try and discredit people's arguments against buying Gold RIGHT NOW

Can't say that I did.

RenovationMan wrote: »

and yet you call the property bears for doing the same thing.

Eh?

RenovationMan wrote: »

I can no sooner go back to 2007 to buy Gold than you could go back to 2003 to buy a house. you're showing an astonishing lack of self-awareness, if I might say so.

Talking about self awareness, you seem to think you're in a completely different discussion.

I'm guessing your refering to Pimperne1, so Ill say it again. He received a facetious response to a facetious comment.

Neither of which has anything to do with your own efforts, no matter how hard you try and inter-twine the two.

geneer

robmatic wrote: »

Ever thought about a career in stand-up?

I couldn't compete with you Rob. Your heeeeeeeelarious.

RenovationMan

geneer wrote: »

Thanks.





Right you are then. Though of course what you actually said was.

Perhaps your core message of balanced investment was too subtle in that one.





Being unaware of your investment stance at that point I am unsure as to how I could be attempting to argue it was hypocritical.



Couldn't find a question mark in your original statement either.



Can't say that I did.



Eh?



Talking about self awareness, you seem to think you're in a completely different discussion.

I'm guessing your refering to Pimperne1, so Ill say it again. He received a facetious response to a facetious comment.

Neither of which has anything to do with your own efforts, no matter how hard you try and inter-twine the two.

LOL, it's like watching a worm on a hook. :rotfl:

geneer

RenovationMan wrote: »

LOL, it's like watching a worm on a hook. :rotfl:

Excellent rebuttal. Not.
One can only imagine you don't have a leg to stand on.

RenovationMan

geneer wrote: »

Excellent rebuttal. Not.
One can only imagine you don't have a leg to stand on.

Nope, just find it pointless to discuss anything with someone who changes their position, backstory and reality as often as the weather changes in Manchester.

Walter Mitty anyone?

robmatic

RenovationMan wrote: »

LOL, it's like watching a worm on a hook. :rotfl:

Just you wait, he'll declare that he's the 'winner' next.

RenovationMan

robmatic wrote: »

Just you wait, he'll declare that he's the 'winner' next.

If you equate geneer discussions with the world of sport, we all would start off playing football, reach 90 minutes beating geneer 10-0 and have him turn around in 'time added on' and have him inform the board that he was actually playing tennis. Not only this, but it would be a form of tennis that he had invented and only he knew the rules. He would unilaterally declare himself the winner and remind everyone of his 'victory' across multiple threads and multiple forums over many months.

One really does have to remind oneself that geneer has admitted to being a man aged approximately 35, rather than an adolescent aged 14.

Mallotum_X

RenovationMan wrote: »

If you equate geneer discussions with the world of sport, we all would start off playing football, reach 90 minutes beating geneer 10-0 and have him turn around in 'time added on' and have him inform the board that he was actually playing tennis. Not only this, but it would be a form of tennis that he had invented and only he knew the rules. He would unilaterally declare himself the winner and remind everyone of his 'victory' across multiple threads and multiple forums over many months.

One really does have to remind oneself that geneer has admitted to being a man aged approximately 35, rather than an adolescent aged 14.

And yet so many people on here seem unable to avoid pointless discussions/arguments with him, then complain about the very discussion they got into, or more often, started. Pot and Kettle springs to mind. If you dont want to play then just ignore him. But to play and then complain makes you look just as silly.

But if you do ignore him, please dont post about the ignore function every five minutes as someone else felt the need to do.