I don't mean to be insulting here, Scott, but I feel that I need to point out that it is your job to understand this sort of thing. Do you understand it? Are you just pretending not to understand it? Is there something about this issue and the reaction of some to honest reporting on it that causes you to not want to let into your consideration of it knowledge that in other circumstances you would be happy to make use of?

<snip>

Why do you twist yourself into logic pretzels in an effort to avoid the obvious realities that apply here?

<snip>

You should be asking yourself why you put up so much resistance to being convinced of things that are so obviously so.

<snip>

You say: "The algebra of corporate returns..." blah, blah, blah, blee, blee, blee. No one cares about algebra, Scott.

<snip>

Those peoples' retirements are in grave danger as a result of the demonstrably false claims of the Old School studies. That's the bottom line. I implore you to make that your focus in your consideration of how to proceed re this issue.

<snip>

You say "I don't know" how things will turn out for today's retirees. Precisely so. If you don't know how things will turn out, you know that the Old School studies get the number wrong.

<snip>

The difference is that the New School studies do what they purport to do; they report what will work in the event that stocks perform in the future as they have in the past. The Old School studies do not do this.

<snip>

Again, I mean no insult and I am no fan of sarcasm. But this is very basic stuff, Scott, stuff that I am confident you understand better than you are pretending to understand it in some of the words you have put forward here.

<snip>

I only wish that we had a lot more like him [Leuthold] protecting middle-class investors from the Efficient Market Theory nonsense that has done financial harm to so many middle-class investors in the days since we hit the peak in 2000.

<snip>

I detect hostility in a good number of the words that you have put forward , Scott.

<snip>

I have a good bit of experience in discussion of the SWR matter and I do not believe that I am imagining things. I am detecting hostility because there is some measure of hostility present in you re the work that I have done bringing the flaws of the Old School SWR studies to light.

<snip>

You feel emotion over this issue, Scott. You shouldn't be feeling emotion, according to the Efficient Market Theory. According to the dominant theory of how stock investing works, we are all robots who make rational investing decisions that cause the markets to work efficiently. This is of course nonsense. Your own words in the e-mail below tell the story of how emotions affect our understanding of how investing works.

<snip>

If a leading journalist in the field, one who has a history of speaking as an expert on the SWR topic, is not able to work through these questions rationally, who is?

<snip>

Again, thanks for participating in some back-and-forth, Scott. I continue to have hopes that we will bring you around in time. I no longer view it as appropriate to cite you as a "supporter" (the New School disdains word games, and it is the ultimate word game to characterize the Old School's 4 percent number as "a good rule of thumb").

<snip>

I believe that in time you will come to see that the Old School studies are indefensible.

<snip>

Take care, my old friend.