No. of Recommendations: 38
"Posting on these message boards has been a very interesting 20 year journey. It started on the yahoo board, then moved to the Fools board, but not much changed regardless of which Brkville madrassa we are on. Questioning Father Buffett on any issue always resulted in negative responses, 100 percent of the time."
It has been my experience (over 20 years of message board posting) that I always find that people who sarcastically say things like "Brkville madrassa" and "Father Buffett" aren't really open to understanding differing opinions.
It is just an easy, weak, and lazy way to dismiss anyone who views something differently without needing to understand.
From reading your posts from the past, I know you can be better than this. Now if you either refuse or are unable to understand why people disagree with you that is fine. And if you just then want to insult everyone who disagrees with you by implying they are unthinking idealogues, that is fine as well. Just realize that it reflects more on you than it does them. People here have made good faith arguments about why they disagree with you. You have ignored those arguments completely. Again that is fine, just realize that it is your loss, not theirs.
"Not one member of the Brkville congregation can agree that munger and Buffett are being hypocrites, demanding transparency from others, while allowing the financial press to consistently mis report trading activity at brk."
The reason no one will agree is because no one else thinks they are being hypocrites.
By calling Buffett a hypocrite over transparency, you are making the false argument that you are talking about the same type of transparency in multiple different situations. For one, Buffett has never called for "total transparency" from others. That is you making up something he has never said. Whenever he talks about transparency in others he is always talking about a specific type of transparency. What is total transparency anyway? For two, the transparency Buffett has been calling for in the crypto space is in no way related to the transparency of who buys what in Berkshire.
Your calls of hypocrisy would be more appropriate if Buffett has called out mutual funds (or other entities that could have multiple people making trading decisions) for not identifying the actual person who has made specific trade decisions. Except Buffett has never actually done that, so your hypocrisy charge is false.
The main reason your argument is false is because you use the word transparency in such a wide manner as to make it absurd.
You said "Bottom line, if Buffett and Munger are going to pound the table for total transparency from others, see the crypto space etc, it's hypocritical to refuse to disclose which trades are Buffetts with every quarterly filing."
Then you could easily argue:
Bottom line, if Buffett and Munger are going to pound the table for total transparency from others, see the crypto space etc, it's hypocritical for Buffett to refuse to publish a transcript of Berkshire board meeting minutes.
Or you could easily argue:
Bottom line, if Buffett and Munger are going to pound the table for total transparency from others, see the crypto space etc, it's hypocritical for Buffett to refuse to publish detailed transcripts of conversations he has with Tedd and Todd about potential trades.
Or you could easily argue:
Bottom line, if Buffett and Munger are going to pound the table for total transparency from others, see the crypto space etc, it's hypocritical to refuse to disclose which companies Buffett is talking to about potential acquisitions.
You will probably say those examples are absurd (and they are), but they are no less absurd than what you are demanding. The point is, just because Buffett has called for greater transparency in certain situations doesn't mean he has to tell you anything and everything you want to know about him and what he does regardless of the topic.
