From: recscuba_google@huntzinger.com   
      
   On 12/2/25 09:22, Tom Elam wrote:   
   > On 12/1/2025 4:31 PM, -hh wrote:   
   >> Except for how Alan entered high school as an 18 year old freshman?  /s   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>> I don't don't have a clue when it all started. According to the   
   >>> Google Groups archive My first post was in 1997 and over 6000 posts   
   >>> through 2/22/24. You know, so tell me.   
   >>>   
   >>> I do not doubt for one second that like millions of other people you   
   >>> may have done better than me over a similar timeline. Heck, there are   
   >>> 30ish year old tech billionaires out there. But that is not the   
   >>> comparison in question.   
   >>>   
   >>> I have posted recent images of SOME of my account balances.   
   >>   
   >> Which also showed your total liquid net worth as $2,511,932.38 .. oops!   
   >   
   > That was some of the accounts, not all.   
      
   Oh, I know that you didn't reveal each individual account, because those   
   listed fail to add up to the top line number.  Specifically, there's   
   ~$1.7M not shown; IIRC, that's roughly in line with your IRAs balances.   
   You just didn't do a good enough job redacting your information as you   
   apparently thought you did.   
      
      
   >>> All we have is your word for yours. Not a bit of documentation.   
   >>   
   >> Because your own 'screencap' couldn't be faked?  Try again.   
   >   
   > Really? Faked? That would be a lot of trouble. What do you want, my   
   > logon credentials?   
   >   
   > Prove they were faked. You cannot of course. But, you can say they are.   
   > That is what you do, ask for ever more evidence until the other party   
   > gives up.   
      
   Not the point.  The point was that your screenshot is "your word", not   
   actually documentation.  Since you've already accused me of not   
   documenting and then did the same thing yourself, whatever degree of   
   "proof" you want to try to demand from others, you must first live up to   
   yourself, lest you be a hypocrite.   
      
   >>> Given your history of deflection and deception your brag is worthless   
   >>> until proven.   
   >>   
   >> Nah, you just didn't understand the point in that statement:   
   >>   
   >> "By your methodology of 'counting', I can figuratively drop quite a   
   >> few years of earnings done prior to my highest degree, which by   
   >> comparison makes your wealth brag attempts even more wanting".   
   >   
   > Like I said, I'm not comparing to you....   
      
   Yet you have tried in the past.  Now, you've retreated to only being   
   willing to compare yourself as a joint income family to single (single   
   income) individuals:  golly, that's really honest & fair!  /s   
      
      
   >> The first part is a cut in the years of accumulation prior to the   
   >> terminal degree, just as you did.  You probably don't know how many   
   >> (or few) years that is.   
   >>   
   >   
   > I do not for you, but for Alan I made a 5 year error yesterday or day   
   > before. Alan is actually about 63, not 68. Discovered that yesterday   
   > when I double-checked the arithmetic.   
      
   Or...   
      
   You actually realized your error from my post (12/1/2025 11:59) which   
   you directly replied to, but avoided acknowledging your error.   
      
   Plus you were reminded of this again (12/1/25 16:31) which you're   
   replying to now and still is quoted (very first line).   
      
   So which explanation sounds more credible:  two explicit prompts in   
   posts which you directly replied to without acknowledging, for which you   
   know you'll invariably be hammered by me on, or this "...no, I found it   
   completely on my own!" spin?   
      
      
   > The age difference is 16 years, not 11.   
      
   Only if one also silently acknowledges that how it was pointed out to   
   you that Canadian schools don't start in 9th grade like the USA...   
      
   ...or are you going to "independently discover" & mention that tomorrow?   
      
      
   > In 1989 I was 18 years into full-time work, Alan was 9 years.   
      
   [quote]   
   1966-1969 - Part time technician, City Planning Department (and   
   undergrad school) left to go to grad school. This was a GREAT job, loved   
   the work and it paid 4x minimum wage.   
   [/quote]   
      
   Because the qualifier here is "full time", so as to exclude your years   
   of work which Tom knows that he had while going to school which he knows   
   that Alan couldn't have had, to cherrypick the time window in his favor.   
      
     > So at 63 Alan claims a full time job at Digital Financial but looking   
   > for gig work too - Per LinkedIn. Bad optic.   
      
   Why?  Because one can't ever have jobs outside of working a 9-to-5?   
   For I've been guilty of violating your "rule" on this too.   
      
      
   >> The second part is an implied net worth comparable to your's (eg. your   
   >> above value), but its not stated if it is under, equal, or over.   
   >   
   > The number above is not the whole picture, by quite a bit.   
      
   Already accounted for by noting that the list was of just liquid assets,   
   not total Net worth (to include house, cars, insurance, pensions, etc).   
      
   >> The third part was something you've been reminded of it again in this   
   >> thread:  age-based differences in accumulation opportunities.  That   
   >> age difference is a handicap of many, many fewer years of accumulation   
   >> as you've had at your age of 79, so even getting close to catching up   
   >> is well "ahead of Tommy's schedule".  That's where you very well may   
   >> realized that your brag attempts have been found to be ... wanting.   
   >>   
   >> FYI, if more than merely catching up, that makes it even worse for you.   
   >   
   > My working post graduation working years were 1972-2002/3.   
      
   And there was income revenue generated prior to that which you're   
   avoiding, even if we ignore the stuff prior to graduating high school.   
      
      
   >> Nevertheless, I'll afford you a little peek at a lower limit, but only   
   >> because I've already shared it with RSG's "the other Tom" six years ago:   
   >   
   > That image says nothing.  No row labels and many ######'d data cells.   
      
   It merely is what it is, generated six years ago.   
      
   > This image is junk, and maybe you faked it anyway.   
      
   Except that you've already been reminded that I don't need to lie   
   because the truth is invariably more devastating to you.   
      
   Because what Tommy's trying to do is that despite how he's repeatedly   
   mentioned his use of MS-Excel that he's somehow never learned that when   
   a value is too large for a column's width, Excel uses ####'s to indicate   
   a display overflow.  Here, it means that that value is more than five   
   digits, so its a lower limit paramaterization.   
      
      
   -hh   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)