[edit 2] Oh, and one of the readers was self-described as “decidedly radical left wing” and another noted “I have often bristled at some of your commentary regarding president Trump” and even looks forward to welcoming me over to the “dark side” in 2020 (I am, if it bears repeating, on NO mainstream side politically). I love this, because if I am doing my job well enough as a public writer I am sometimes making people uncomfortable and if they are doing their jobs as intelligent readers they are filtering and being strong enough in their own convictions so as not to let something someone writes upset them too much. Both are unsurprisingly NFTRH subscribers. Outside of politics another notes “No one else is calling out the scammers with such precision.” This is after all, not about peace, love and understanding. It is about not getting our asses handed to us in what can be vile and agenda-stewn financial markets and media.
[edit] Well, looks like the blog is not changing. Feedback from long-term readers basically says ‘just be you’. I am me after all and when I began writing nearly 1.5 decades ago I claimed to be nothing other than the malcontent that I am. The pro service is not changing either. It’ll stay as professional as I can make it and on its path of continual improvement, tuning out much of the noise out there, including that of this blogger!
I did not request permission to reproduce his email, so I’ll summarize his point by saying that it makes me look bad when criticizing others (even nameless others) – as in my critiques of those railing against conspiracies between Jerome Powell and the powers that be rather than just looking at the 2 year bond. It drives people away.
He notes that it is a turn off and comes off as emotional, when all that needs to be done is to state the case and move on. He was very courteous yet honest, and I respect that. He closed with something from Mark Twain to the effect of “never argue with idiots as they will drag you down to their level and beat you with their experience.”
My reply was as follows…
“Excellent, excellent feedback. Thank you, and I agree.
Blogging is a different sort of animal from doing analysis and sometimes I blur the lines.
For instance, I’ve gone off on Trump, bitched and moaned about other things that are not analysis. I should probably put out a reminder more often that this is a blog, not a professional service.
But still, your advice is sound and well respected.
Gary”
So I’ll stick with the idea that this is blogging more than analysis. But it is also a marketing tool for a very professional service and the gentleman has given me something to think about.
Yet I am not trying to get every subscriber I can to join NFTRH. For instance, I’d have a lot more Trump voters and a lot more die hard gold bugs if I’d just have let up a little, and played the game. I understand marketing and I understand business. But the key foundation of this thing is, has been and will continue to be honesty. Sometimes the honesty thing just comes out, warts and all (whether or not I am right in a given view, it is exactly, i.e. honestly what I think).
I also hope that the people who stand by me do so in spite of the warts I not only willingly, but sometimes aggressively display. That is because I hate the ad man, I hate all those canned internet ads disguised as content, I hate vanilla marketing and I hate treating people like fucking automatons. That is how I saw the railing against the Fed.
So yes, my all too faulty humanity shows through and what’s more I don’t really try to hide it (you, I, the other guy and that girl are all faulty). But maybe I don’t need to encourage it quite so much.
That is what the reader gave to me this morning; some perspective about toning it down because maybe busy people just want facts/opinions with less blogging color. It’s just that I have codes of right and wrong, and every day in this realm I perceive wrong. I have a blog and I comment on said wrong. The professional service has evolved into something completely different than that. There is ZERO time for b/s in its 50+ pages.
