On 12/6/2025 9:11 PM, -hh wrote:
On 12/6/25 09:47, Tom Elam wrote:
On 12/5/2025 1:36 PM, -hh wrote:
LOL, it was just a partial picture. Just like yours.
Except that it clearly says "all accounts" with a total of $2.51M.
Here again you jump to a bogus conclusion.
Nope, for I'm not who posted a pic which said "All accounts".
That was all accounts at that one company. There are 4 of them. We
have investments with other companies (and cash not shown) too.
Imagine that! Apparently you cannot.
That claim doesn't square with what your own image displayed, because
your image shows five accounts, not four. There's the four obvious
ones, with claimed balances of $5.5K, $10.8K, $39K and $0.4K, plus
there's also "Individual Brokerage-2955" wtih $751.6K.
Plus as I've said before, there's ~$1.7M unaccounted for because the
above five accounts sum to $807.4K, but the "All Accounts" line claims
four accounts for $2.5M: $1,704,519 is not accounted for/undocumented.
Hmmm...maybe there was a Photoshop job done here, eh? /s
To make you happy here are all of our investment accounts:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UevoIJ1SUe26Zq0XadMqEpgldjtJEq3B/
view? usp=sharing
As of today, formatted just for you.
Funny how none of the balances are even close to what you posted as
your balances on just seven days ago.
Funny how you're guilty of YA "do as I say, not as I do"...
...because you showed five digits, contrary to your own instructions:
"So show us your numbers, with some details on where they are, with 7
digits on the left of the decimal point. I did."
Plus the second brag attempt is fishy smelling too, as some lines look
like subtotals, possibly as a deception to try to encourage double-
counting. For example, $14,186.87 is the exact sum of $7,048.54 +
$7,138.33 values listed immediately below it, as is also $54,223.21
($26,945.97 + $27,227.24).
Plus despite being allegedly of the same accounts, the two brags
attempts don't appear to align well: where is the former's $39.1K
HYSA in the latter? Did it drop by ~$12K in value in just one week?
-hh
LOL! You are totally confused. Score!
You will never see all details, > but look at this again:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/145PxsEKUioG_HkUEKF8mzkUZQx_wsZqB/view? usp=sharing
The first image is a brokerage with 4 accounts. The second is a credit
union snapshot with 4 accounts.
There are other brokerage and cash accounts.
Stop trying to put is all
together when you do not, and never will see, the total picture.
Yes, the carefully redacted Excel version I downloaded from Quicken has different numbers. That is because it is investments only, not any
banking numbers.
What you are saying is a major change in amounts is actually VERY
VERY different accounts, investments not cash, with the names
hidden from you. There subtotals in the Excel image. Of course you
are confused. The intent was not to inform.
The only way this ever go started in the first place was you baiting
with claims that I am bragging about my financial status. Honest person
that I am I tried to show I'm not lying.
I could care less that you are among the many who have accumulated
more in less time that we have.
Your amateurish attempts to reconcile incomplete and seemingly
inconsistent data, all of which are accurate by themselves, are
hilarious, never ending, and fruitless. I'm going to stop this here. You need to give it up too. You are being made a fool.
On 12/7/25 12:06, Tom Elam wrote:
On 12/6/2025 9:11 PM, -hh wrote:
On 12/6/25 09:47, Tom Elam wrote:
On 12/5/2025 1:36 PM, -hh wrote:
LOL, it was just a partial picture. Just like yours.
Except that it clearly says "all accounts" with a total of $2.51M.
Here again you jump to a bogus conclusion.
Nope, for I'm not who posted a pic which said "All accounts".
That was all accounts at that one company. There are 4 of them. We
have investments with other companies (and cash not shown) too.
Imagine that! Apparently you cannot.
That claim doesn't square with what your own image displayed, because
your image shows five accounts, not four. There's the four obvious
ones, with claimed balances of $5.5K, $10.8K, $39K and $0.4K, plus
there's also "Individual Brokerage-2955" wtih $751.6K.
Plus as I've said before, there's ~$1.7M unaccounted for because the
above five accounts sum to $807.4K, but the "All Accounts" line
claims four accounts for $2.5M: $1,704,519 is not accounted for/
undocumented.
Hmmm...maybe there was a Photoshop job done here, eh? /s
To make you happy here are all of our investment accounts:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UevoIJ1SUe26Zq0XadMqEpgldjtJEq3B/
view? usp=sharing
As of today, formatted just for you.
Funny how none of the balances are even close to what you posted as
your balances on just seven days ago.
Funny how you're guilty of YA "do as I say, not as I do"...
...because you showed five digits, contrary to your own instructions:
"So show us your numbers, with some details on where they are, with 7
digits on the left of the decimal point. I did."
Plus the second brag attempt is fishy smelling too, as some lines
look like subtotals, possibly as a deception to try to encourage
double- counting. For example, $14,186.87 is the exact sum of
$7,048.54 + $7,138.33 values listed immediately below it, as is also
$54,223.21 ($26,945.97 + $27,227.24).
Plus despite being allegedly of the same accounts, the two brags
attempts don't appear to align well: where is the former's $39.1K
HYSA in the latter? Did it drop by ~$12K in value in just one week?
-hh
LOL! You are totally confused. Score!
Tommy confesses that deception was actually his goal.
You will never see all details, > but look at this again:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/145PxsEKUioG_HkUEKF8mzkUZQx_wsZqB/
view? usp=sharing
The first image is a brokerage with 4 accounts. The second is a credit
union snapshot with 4 accounts.
Incorrect, for you provided only one image.
That you Photoshopped multiple images together doesn't change that the
first says that its total is $2.511M
Nor that we can sum the four CU accounts to get $55.8K, so even if your latest attempted explanation is accepted that these are in addition to
the prior, its a "so what?" because adding the CU's $55.8K is just a
minor +2% change.
There are other brokerage and cash accounts.
To which we're expected to believe that while Tommy's trying to make a maximal brag about himself that he chose to not include? Does not fly.
Stop trying to put is all together when you do not, and never will
see, the total picture.
Yet that didn't stop you from trying to demand the total picture of others...hypocrite much?
Yes, the carefully redacted Excel version I downloaded from Quicken
has different numbers. That is because it is investments only, not any
banking numbers.
Since you've already provided what you claimed were four credit union banking accounts, what sense does it make to do that?
What you are saying is a major change in amounts is actually VERY
VERY different accounts, investments not cash, with the names hidden
from you. There subtotals in the Excel image. Of course you are
confused. The intent was not to inform.
Of course the intent was not to inform: it is to try to deceive. Notice how Tommy avoided acknowledging that at least two of his numbers were subtotals?
The only way this ever go started in the first place was you baiting
with claims that I am bragging about my financial status. Honest
person that I am I tried to show I'm not lying.
Just merely two deceptive documents (so far) & lying through omission:
"Throwing out misleading and irreverent numbers to impress others.
Bad, very bad."
- Tom Elam, on 12/5/25 10:10
I could care less that you are among the many who have accumulated
more in less time that we have.
Gosh, what a quick 180 turn, from just over a week ago, when Tommy was claiming the opposite (still!):
Right side of Tommy's piehole, on 11/28/25 16:40: "But since you seem
to need $120 SO badly you had to wait for Black Friday..."
Likewise, same arrogant piehole, on 11/28/25 10:58: "Followup #2 ... My take is that in actual reality that $120 seems to be very important to
YOU. Needing that for groceries or utility bills, are you?"
Your amateurish attempts to reconcile incomplete and seemingly
inconsistent data, all of which are accurate by themselves, are
hilarious, never ending, and fruitless. I'm going to stop this here.
You need to give it up too. You are being made a fool.
Translation:
Tommy knows that he's been caught (again) with his deception attempt, so instead of being honest & accountable, he's going to run away (again),
in a futile effort to try to save face (again). Who's the fool again?
TL;DR on all of this: assuming minimal forgeries, Tommy's provided
about the best evidence seen to date that he's probably accumulated a
bit over $2.5M after having worked into his mid/upper-70s. Of course,
the Stock Market's long Bull run over the past ~decade+ has made some
pretty big gains on paper for a lot of folks, both smart & dumb alike.
-hh
TL;DR on all of this: assuming minimal forgeries, Tommy's providedNo again Hugh, That was 2 JPG screenshots on a Word page.
about the best evidence seen to date that he's probably accumulated a
bit over $2.5M after having worked into his mid/upper-70s. Of course,
the Stock Market's long Bull run over the past ~decade+ has made some
pretty big gains on paper for a lot of folks, both smart & dumb alike.
-hh
On 12/7/2025 5:11 PM, -hh wrote:
On 12/7/25 12:06, Tom Elam wrote:No again Hugh, That was 2 JPG screenshots on a Word page.
On 12/6/2025 9:11 PM, -hh wrote:
On 12/6/25 09:47, Tom Elam wrote:
On 12/5/2025 1:36 PM, -hh wrote:
LOL, it was just a partial picture. Just like yours.
Except that it clearly says "all accounts" with a total of $2.51M.
Here again you jump to a bogus conclusion.
Nope, for I'm not who posted a pic which said "All accounts".
That was all accounts at that one company. There are 4 of them. We
have investments with other companies (and cash not shown) too.
Imagine that! Apparently you cannot.
That claim doesn't square with what your own image displayed,
because your image shows five accounts, not four. There's the four
obvious ones, with claimed balances of $5.5K, $10.8K, $39K and
$0.4K, plus there's also "Individual Brokerage-2955" wtih $751.6K.
Plus as I've said before, there's ~$1.7M unaccounted for because the
above five accounts sum to $807.4K, but the "All Accounts" line
claims four accounts for $2.5M: $1,704,519 is not accounted for/
undocumented.
Hmmm...maybe there was a Photoshop job done here, eh? /s
To make you happy here are all of our investment accounts:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UevoIJ1SUe26Zq0XadMqEpgldjtJEq3B/
view? usp=sharing
As of today, formatted just for you.
Funny how none of the balances are even close to what you posted as
your balances on just seven days ago.
Funny how you're guilty of YA "do as I say, not as I do"...
...because you showed five digits, contrary to your own instructions:
"So show us your numbers, with some details on where they are, with
7 digits on the left of the decimal point. I did."
Plus the second brag attempt is fishy smelling too, as some lines
look like subtotals, possibly as a deception to try to encourage
double- counting. For example, $14,186.87 is the exact sum of
$7,048.54 + $7,138.33 values listed immediately below it, as is also
$54,223.21 ($26,945.97 + $27,227.24).
Plus despite being allegedly of the same accounts, the two brags
attempts don't appear to align well: where is the former's $39.1K
HYSA in the latter? Did it drop by ~$12K in value in just one week?
-hh
LOL! You are totally confused. Score!
Tommy confesses that deception was actually his goal.
You will never see all details, > but look at this again:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/145PxsEKUioG_HkUEKF8mzkUZQx_wsZqB/
view? usp=sharing
The first image is a brokerage with 4 accounts. The second is a
credit union snapshot with 4 accounts.
Incorrect, for you provided only one image.
That you Photoshopped multiple images together doesn't change that the
first says that its total is $2.511M
Nor that we can sum the four CU accounts to get $55.8K, so even if
your latest attempted explanation is accepted that these are in
addition to the prior, its a "so what?" because adding the CU's $55.8K
is just a minor +2% change.
There are other brokerage and cash accounts.
To which we're expected to believe that while Tommy's trying to make a
maximal brag about himself that he chose to not include? Does not fly.
Stop trying to put is all together when you do not, and never will
see, the total picture.
Yet that didn't stop you from trying to demand the total picture of
others...hypocrite much?
Yes, the carefully redacted Excel version I downloaded from Quicken
has different numbers. That is because it is investments only, not
any banking numbers.
Since you've already provided what you claimed were four credit union
banking accounts, what sense does it make to do that?
What you are saying is a major change in amounts is actually VERY
VERY different accounts, investments not cash, with the names hidden
from you. There subtotals in the Excel image. Of course you are
confused. The intent was not to inform.
Of course the intent was not to inform: it is to try to deceive.
Notice how Tommy avoided acknowledging that at least two of his
numbers were subtotals?
The only way this ever go started in the first place was you baiting
with claims that I am bragging about my financial status. Honest
person that I am I tried to show I'm not lying.
Just merely two deceptive documents (so far) & lying through omission:
"Throwing out misleading and irreverent numbers to impress others.
Bad, very bad."
- Tom Elam, on 12/5/25 10:10
I could care less that you are among the many who have accumulated
more in less time that we have.
Gosh, what a quick 180 turn, from just over a week ago, when Tommy was
claiming the opposite (still!):
Right side of Tommy's piehole, on 11/28/25 16:40: "But since you seem
to need $120 SO badly you had to wait for Black Friday..."
Likewise, same arrogant piehole, on 11/28/25 10:58: "Followup #2 ...
My take is that in actual reality that $120 seems to be very important
to YOU. Needing that for groceries or utility bills, are you?"
Your amateurish attempts to reconcile incomplete and seemingly
inconsistent data, all of which are accurate by themselves, are
hilarious, never ending, and fruitless. I'm going to stop this here.
You need to give it up too. You are being made a fool.
Translation:
Tommy knows that he's been caught (again) with his deception attempt,
so instead of being honest & accountable, he's going to run away
(again), in a futile effort to try to save face (again). Who's the
fool again?
TL;DR on all of this: assuming minimal forgeries, Tommy's provided
about the best evidence seen to date that he's probably accumulated a
bit over $2.5M after having worked into his mid/upper-70s. Of course,
the Stock Market's long Bull run over the past ~decade+ has made some
pretty big gains on paper for a lot of folks, both smart & dumb alike.
-hh
So here is the reality.
For years I have baited you with partial and confusing information that
you continue to misinterpret in lengthy great detail as not being true.
Indeed...which is that it is always about bringing attention
back to Tommy, lest anyone else ever get any credit where credit is
due. ;-)
Jealous?
Every piece of data provided has been true as of the date and time
posted.
You have never seen the whole picture and never will. You have
spent hours trying to figure it out, and never will. All your time on "analysis" has been pointless. LOL
The only "brag" is not the dollars, it's that I have enticed you to
spending all this time trying to get me to expose the entire package.
No one other than my estate attorney, broker and wife have ever seen
that total picture. You certainly never will. LOL
I absolutely do not care what anyone in the tiny CSMA community thinks
about me.
That includes you. Or Liarboy Alan. In Quicken on the screen to my
left is the total picture on the laptop screen. Just a screenshot,
upload to Google Drive and posted here via a shared link away.
And, a big thank you to my broker and the equities markets!
ROTFLMAF!!!!!
On 2025-12-08 12:12, Tom Elam wrote:
TL;DR on all of this: assuming minimal forgeries, Tommy's providedNo again Hugh, That was 2 JPG screenshots on a Word page.
about the best evidence seen to date that he's probably accumulated a
bit over $2.5M after having worked into his mid/upper-70s. Of
course, the Stock Market's long Bull run over the past ~decade+ has
made some pretty big gains on paper for a lot of folks, both smart &
dumb alike.
-hh
You should quit while you're behind, Asshole.
On 2025-12-08 12:12, Tom Elam wrote:
TL;DR on all of this: assuming minimal forgeries, Tommy's providedNo again Hugh, That was 2 JPG screenshots on a Word page.
about the best evidence seen to date that he's probably accumulated a
bit over $2.5M after having worked into his mid/upper-70s. Of
course, the Stock Market's long Bull run over the past ~decade+ has
made some pretty big gains on paper for a lot of folks, both smart &
dumb alike.
-hh
You should quit while you're behind, Asshole.
On 12/8/25 15:12, Tom Elam wrote:
On 12/7/2025 5:11 PM, -hh wrote:
On 12/7/25 12:06, Tom Elam wrote:No again Hugh, That was 2 JPG screenshots on a Word page.
On 12/6/2025 9:11 PM, -hh wrote:
On 12/6/25 09:47, Tom Elam wrote:
On 12/5/2025 1:36 PM, -hh wrote:
Here again you jump to a bogus conclusion.LOL, it was just a partial picture. Just like yours.
Except that it clearly says "all accounts" with a total of $2.51M. >>>>>>
Nope, for I'm not who posted a pic which said "All accounts".
That was all accounts at that one company. There are 4 of them. We >>>>>> have investments with other companies (and cash not shown) too.
Imagine that! Apparently you cannot.
That claim doesn't square with what your own image displayed,
because your image shows five accounts, not four. There's the four >>>>> obvious ones, with claimed balances of $5.5K, $10.8K, $39K and
$0.4K, plus there's also "Individual Brokerage-2955" wtih $751.6K.
Plus as I've said before, there's ~$1.7M unaccounted for because
the above five accounts sum to $807.4K, but the "All Accounts" line >>>>> claims four accounts for $2.5M: $1,704,519 is not accounted for/
undocumented.
Hmmm...maybe there was a Photoshop job done here, eh? /s
To make you happy here are all of our investment accounts:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UevoIJ1SUe26Zq0XadMqEpgldjtJEq3B/ >>>>>> view? usp=sharing
As of today, formatted just for you.
Funny how none of the balances are even close to what you posted as >>>>> your balances on just seven days ago.
Funny how you're guilty of YA "do as I say, not as I do"...
...because you showed five digits, contrary to your own instructions: >>>>>
"So show us your numbers, with some details on where they are, with >>>>> 7 digits on the left of the decimal point. I did."
Plus the second brag attempt is fishy smelling too, as some lines
look like subtotals, possibly as a deception to try to encourage
double- counting. For example, $14,186.87 is the exact sum of
$7,048.54 + $7,138.33 values listed immediately below it, as is
also $54,223.21 ($26,945.97 + $27,227.24).
Plus despite being allegedly of the same accounts, the two brags
attempts don't appear to align well: where is the former's $39.1K >>>>> HYSA in the latter? Did it drop by ~$12K in value in just one week? >>>>>
-hh
LOL! You are totally confused. Score!
Tommy confesses that deception was actually his goal.
You will never see all details, > but look at this again:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/145PxsEKUioG_HkUEKF8mzkUZQx_wsZqB/
view? usp=sharing
The first image is a brokerage with 4 accounts. The second is a
credit union snapshot with 4 accounts.
Incorrect, for you provided only one image.
That you Photoshopped multiple images together doesn't change that
the first says that its total is $2.511M
Nor that we can sum the four CU accounts to get $55.8K, so even if
your latest attempted explanation is accepted that these are in
addition to the prior, its a "so what?" because adding the CU's
$55.8K is just a minor +2% change.
There are other brokerage and cash accounts.
To which we're expected to believe that while Tommy's trying to make
a maximal brag about himself that he chose to not include? Does not
fly.
Stop trying to put is all together when you do not, and never will
see, the total picture.
Yet that didn't stop you from trying to demand the total picture of
others...hypocrite much?
Yes, the carefully redacted Excel version I downloaded from Quicken
has different numbers. That is because it is investments only, not
any banking numbers.
Since you've already provided what you claimed were four credit union
banking accounts, what sense does it make to do that?
What you are saying is a major change in amounts is actually VERY
VERY different accounts, investments not cash, with the names hidden
from you. There subtotals in the Excel image. Of course you are
confused. The intent was not to inform.
Of course the intent was not to inform: it is to try to deceive.
Notice how Tommy avoided acknowledging that at least two of his
numbers were subtotals?
The only way this ever go started in the first place was you baiting
with claims that I am bragging about my financial status. Honest
person that I am I tried to show I'm not lying.
Just merely two deceptive documents (so far) & lying through omission:
"Throwing out misleading and irreverent numbers to impress others.
Bad, very bad."
- Tom Elam, on 12/5/25 10:10
I could care less that you are among the many who have accumulated
more in less time that we have.
Gosh, what a quick 180 turn, from just over a week ago, when Tommy
was claiming the opposite (still!):
Right side of Tommy's piehole, on 11/28/25 16:40: "But since you
seem to need $120 SO badly you had to wait for Black Friday..."
Likewise, same arrogant piehole, on 11/28/25 10:58: "Followup #2 ...
My take is that in actual reality that $120 seems to be very
important to YOU. Needing that for groceries or utility bills, are you?" >>>
Your amateurish attempts to reconcile incomplete and seemingly
inconsistent data, all of which are accurate by themselves, are
hilarious, never ending, and fruitless. I'm going to stop this here.
You need to give it up too. You are being made a fool.
Translation:
Tommy knows that he's been caught (again) with his deception attempt,
so instead of being honest & accountable, he's going to run away
(again), in a futile effort to try to save face (again). Who's the
fool again?
TL;DR on all of this: assuming minimal forgeries, Tommy's provided
about the best evidence seen to date that he's probably accumulated a
bit over $2.5M after having worked into his mid/upper-70s. Of
course, the Stock Market's long Bull run over the past ~decade+ has
made some pretty big gains on paper for a lot of folks, both smart &
dumb alike.
-hh
Which you still deliberately misrepresented.
So here is the reality.
For years I have baited you with partial and confusing information
that you continue to misinterpret in lengthy great detail as not being
true.
Oh, we all know that you've posted many times your attempts to draw envious attention to yourself.
Which has been pointed out by others, not just me:
[quote]
On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 8:20:53 AM UTC-7, Thomas E. wrote:
...
Indeed...which is that it is always about bringing attention
back to Tommy, lest anyone else ever get any credit where credit is
due. ;-)
Jealous?
c'mon now tom. you're bragging about making close to 6 figures. based
on hh's comments on travel and his pictures, and what he's posted on
cars, once can reasonable guess that he likely is making a decent
chunk more than you.
[/quote]
- ed, on Aug 23, 2016, 12:19:30 PM <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/c/9zaLEn2qC4Q/ m/5iJH9xywDQAJ>
Another example was your travel brag attempts, where you were trying to insinuate that your travel = your wealth, but was cut off at the knees.
Every piece of data provided has been true as of the date and time
posted.
But also selectively cherry-picked to put you in best possible light.
You have never seen the whole picture and never will. You have spent
hours trying to figure it out, and never will. All your time on
"analysis" has been pointless. LOL
Nah, your cries for attention have shown how desperate you are. And
even with your selectively chosen claims, you've built limits around
what the 'whole' truth may be, which I've noted as paramaterizations.
They hardly take much time at all, and is good practice for when my day
job has called upon dissecting other less slimy contractors/consultants.
The only "brag" is not the dollars, it's that I have enticed you to
spending all this time trying to get me to expose the entire package.
No one other than my estate attorney, broker and wife have ever seen
that total picture. You certainly never will. LOL
Nope, & irrelevant: I've merely noted you trying to demand the 'entire package' of others while you don't do the same yourself = hypocrite.
I absolutely do not care what anyone in the tiny CSMA community thinks
about me.
But if that was actually true, then why are you posting ... yet again?
That includes you. Or Liarboy Alan. In Quicken on the screen to my
left is the total picture on the laptop screen. Just a screenshot,
upload to Google Drive and posted here via a shared link away.
Because you've repeatedly devalued your own reputation, your brag
attempts are weaker & weaker, and less & less credible.
This past week's example was your Excel ####'s where you repeatedly
avoided admitting that some of your listed values were subtotals. So
even if you were to post something more, what makes it any more credible than your prior deception attempts? Nothing.
And, a big thank you to my broker and the equities markets!
ROTFLMAF!!!!!
That's profoundly missing the point I made, still quoted above:
"Of course, the Stock Market's long Bull run over the past ~decade+ has
made some pretty big gains on paper for a lot of folks, both smart &
dumb alike."
-hh
On 12/8/2025 4:07 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-08 12:12, Tom Elam wrote:
TL;DR on all of this: assuming minimal forgeries, Tommy's providedNo again Hugh, That was 2 JPG screenshots on a Word page.
about the best evidence seen to date that he's probably accumulated
a bit over $2.5M after having worked into his mid/upper-70s. Of
course, the Stock Market's long Bull run over the past ~decade+ has
made some pretty big gains on paper for a lot of folks, both smart &
dumb alike.
-hh
You should quit while you're behind, Asshole.
I have proof that you have been behind on something. Want that revealed?
On 12/8/2025 4:37 PM, -hh wrote:
On 12/8/25 15:12, Tom Elam wrote:
On 12/7/2025 5:11 PM, -hh wrote:
On 12/7/25 12:06, Tom Elam wrote:No again Hugh, That was 2 JPG screenshots on a Word page.
On 12/6/2025 9:11 PM, -hh wrote:
On 12/6/25 09:47, Tom Elam wrote:
On 12/5/2025 1:36 PM, -hh wrote:
Here again you jump to a bogus conclusion.LOL, it was just a partial picture. Just like yours.
Except that it clearly says "all accounts" with a total of $2.51M. >>>>>>>
Nope, for I'm not who posted a pic which said "All accounts".
That was all accounts at that one company. There are 4 of them. >>>>>>> We have investments with other companies (and cash not shown)
too. Imagine that! Apparently you cannot.
That claim doesn't square with what your own image displayed,
because your image shows five accounts, not four. There's the
four obvious ones, with claimed balances of $5.5K, $10.8K, $39K
and $0.4K, plus there's also "Individual Brokerage-2955" wtih
$751.6K.
Plus as I've said before, there's ~$1.7M unaccounted for because
the above five accounts sum to $807.4K, but the "All Accounts"
line claims four accounts for $2.5M: $1,704,519 is not accounted >>>>>> for/ undocumented.
Hmmm...maybe there was a Photoshop job done here, eh? /s
To make you happy here are all of our investment accounts:
https://drive.google.com/file/
d/1UevoIJ1SUe26Zq0XadMqEpgldjtJEq3B/ view? usp=sharing
As of today, formatted just for you.
Funny how none of the balances are even close to what you posted
as your balances on just seven days ago.
Funny how you're guilty of YA "do as I say, not as I do"...
...because you showed five digits, contrary to your own instructions: >>>>>>
"So show us your numbers, with some details on where they are,
with 7 digits on the left of the decimal point. I did."
Plus the second brag attempt is fishy smelling too, as some lines >>>>>> look like subtotals, possibly as a deception to try to encourage
double- counting. For example, $14,186.87 is the exact sum of
$7,048.54 + $7,138.33 values listed immediately below it, as is
also $54,223.21 ($26,945.97 + $27,227.24).
Plus despite being allegedly of the same accounts, the two brags
attempts don't appear to align well: where is the former's $39.1K >>>>>> HYSA in the latter? Did it drop by ~$12K in value in just one week? >>>>>>
-hh
LOL! You are totally confused. Score!
Tommy confesses that deception was actually his goal.
You will never see all details, > but look at this again:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/145PxsEKUioG_HkUEKF8mzkUZQx_wsZqB/
view? usp=sharing
The first image is a brokerage with 4 accounts. The second is a
credit union snapshot with 4 accounts.
Incorrect, for you provided only one image.
That you Photoshopped multiple images together doesn't change that
the first says that its total is $2.511M
Nor that we can sum the four CU accounts to get $55.8K, so even if
your latest attempted explanation is accepted that these are in
addition to the prior, its a "so what?" because adding the CU's
$55.8K is just a minor +2% change.
There are other brokerage and cash accounts.
To which we're expected to believe that while Tommy's trying to make
a maximal brag about himself that he chose to not include? Does not >>>> fly.
Stop trying to put is all together when you do not, and never will
see, the total picture.
Yet that didn't stop you from trying to demand the total picture of
others...hypocrite much?
Yes, the carefully redacted Excel version I downloaded from Quicken >>>>> has different numbers. That is because it is investments only, not
any banking numbers.
Since you've already provided what you claimed were four credit
union banking accounts, what sense does it make to do that?
What you are saying is a major change in amounts is actually VERY
VERY different accounts, investments not cash, with the names
hidden from you. There subtotals in the Excel image. Of course you >>>>> are confused. The intent was not to inform.
Of course the intent was not to inform: it is to try to deceive.
Notice how Tommy avoided acknowledging that at least two of his
numbers were subtotals?
The only way this ever go started in the first place was you
baiting with claims that I am bragging about my financial status.
Honest person that I am I tried to show I'm not lying.
Just merely two deceptive documents (so far) & lying through omission: >>>>
"Throwing out misleading and irreverent numbers to impress others.
Bad, very bad."
- Tom Elam, on 12/5/25 10:10
I could care less that you are among the many who have accumulated
more in less time that we have.
Gosh, what a quick 180 turn, from just over a week ago, when Tommy
was claiming the opposite (still!):
Right side of Tommy's piehole, on 11/28/25 16:40: "But since you
seem to need $120 SO badly you had to wait for Black Friday..."
Likewise, same arrogant piehole, on 11/28/25 10:58: "Followup
#2 ... My take is that in actual reality that $120 seems to be very
important to YOU. Needing that for groceries or utility bills, are
you?"
Your amateurish attempts to reconcile incomplete and seemingly
inconsistent data, all of which are accurate by themselves, are
hilarious, never ending, and fruitless. I'm going to stop this
here. You need to give it up too. You are being made a fool.
Translation:
Tommy knows that he's been caught (again) with his deception
attempt, so instead of being honest & accountable, he's going to run
away (again), in a futile effort to try to save face (again). Who's >>>> the fool again?
TL;DR on all of this: assuming minimal forgeries, Tommy's provided
about the best evidence seen to date that he's probably accumulated
a bit over $2.5M after having worked into his mid/upper-70s. Of
course, the Stock Market's long Bull run over the past ~decade+ has
made some pretty big gains on paper for a lot of folks, both smart &
dumb alike.
-hh
Which you still deliberately misrepresented.
So here is the reality.
For years I have baited you with partial and confusing information
that you continue to misinterpret in lengthy great detail as not
being true.
Oh, we all know that you've posted many times your attempts to draw
envious attention to yourself.
Which has been pointed out by others, not just me:
[quote]
On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 8:20:53 AM UTC-7, Thomas E. wrote:
...
is >> due. ;-)Indeed...which is that it is always about bringing attention
back to Tommy, lest anyone else ever get any credit where credit
;
Jealous?
c'mon now tom. you're bragging about making close to 6 figures. based
on hh's comments on travel and his pictures, and what he's posted on
cars, once can reasonable guess that he likely is making a decent
chunk more than you.
[/quote]
- ed, on Aug 23, 2016, 12:19:30 PM
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/c/9zaLEn2qC4Q/
m/5iJH9xywDQAJ>
Another example was your travel brag attempts, where you were trying
to insinuate that your travel = your wealth, but was cut off at the
knees.
Every piece of data provided has been true as of the date and time
posted.
But also selectively cherry-picked to put you in best possible light.
You have never seen the whole picture and never will. You have spent
hours trying to figure it out, and never will. All your time on
"analysis" has been pointless. LOL
Nah, your cries for attention have shown how desperate you are. And
even with your selectively chosen claims, you've built limits around
what the 'whole' truth may be, which I've noted as paramaterizations.
They hardly take much time at all, and is good practice for when my
day job has called upon dissecting other less slimy contractors/
consultants.
The only "brag" is not the dollars, it's that I have enticed you to
spending all this time trying to get me to expose the entire package.
No one other than my estate attorney, broker and wife have ever seen
that total picture. You certainly never will. LOL
Nope, & irrelevant: I've merely noted you trying to demand the
'entire package' of others while you don't do the same yourself =
hypocrite.
I absolutely do not care what anyone in the tiny CSMA community
thinks about me.
But if that was actually true, then why are you posting ... yet again?
That includes you. Or Liarboy Alan. In Quicken on the screen to my
left is the total picture on the laptop screen. Just a screenshot,
upload to Google Drive and posted here via a shared link away.
Because you've repeatedly devalued your own reputation, your brag
attempts are weaker & weaker, and less & less credible.
This past week's example was your Excel ####'s where you repeatedly
avoided admitting that some of your listed values were subtotals. So
even if you were to post something more, what makes it any more
credible than your prior deception attempts? Nothing.
And, a big thank you to my broker and the equities markets!
ROTFLMAF!!!!!
That's profoundly missing the point I made, still quoted above:
"Of course, the Stock Market's long Bull run over the past ~decade+
has made some pretty big gains on paper for a lot of folks, both smart
& dumb alike."
-hh
I don't owe you anything.
I never deceived anybody. Everything I posted
on this topic is true, but incomplete.
Even if I did show it all you
would claim it is falsified. Can't win, can I?
I never deceived anybody. Everything I posted on this topic is true,
but incomplete.
You've already admitted in this thread that you've deliberately "baited" with your selective cherry-picking. That's deliberate deception.
Even if I did show it all you would claim it is falsified. Can't win,
can I?
One succeeds by knowing better: not bragging about their income, net worth, car they drive, trophy house(s), etc.
On 12/9/25 06:44, Tom Elam wrote:
On 12/8/2025 4:07 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-08 12:12, Tom Elam wrote:
TL;DR on all of this: assuming minimal forgeries, Tommy's provided >>>>> about the best evidence seen to date that he's probably accumulated >>>>> a bit over $2.5M after having worked into his mid/upper-70s. OfNo again Hugh, That was 2 JPG screenshots on a Word page.
course, the Stock Market's long Bull run over the past ~decade+ has >>>>> made some pretty big gains on paper for a lot of folks, both smart
& dumb alike.
-hh
You should quit while you're behind, Asshole.
I have proof that you have been behind on something. Want that revealed?
No other way to put it:
Tom Elam tries to make a blackmail threat.
FWIW, I can recall years ago in a different newsgroup where a poster similarly started to irrationally lash out, including falsely accusing another poster of raping their own daughter.
That was when those newsgroup decided to contact that poster's wife.
Wife revoked his internet access for the rest of his life.
-hh
On 12/9/2025 9:41 AM, -hh wrote:
I never deceived anybody. Everything I posted on this topic is true,
but incomplete.
You've already admitted in this thread that you've deliberately
"baited" with your selective cherry-picking. That's deliberate
deception.
LOL, it was all true.
This started out with your criticism of my regression model.
Even if I did show it all you would claim it is falsified. Can't win,
can I?
So next you deflect with the answer below. The person who would never
admit that scuba and snorkel both have to involve diving would never
admit that anything I showed in this context is accurate.
One succeeds by knowing better: not bragging about their income, net
worth, car they drive, trophy house(s), etc.
My income and net worth details are not known to anyone outside my wife,
a lawyer and a broker/investment advisor. You are the only person on
this planet who has ever even inquired.
You are the one who, when informed I bought a Subaru said it
could have been a Porsche.
You are
the one who labeled my house as a tract home, now it's a trophy home.
Tract home is correct. Nothing special in a part of Carmel full of $1+ million mansions. Compared to Alan's 500 sq ft Vancouver condo you might
be right, but in this area!
Hypocrite!
"...your 'results' speaking was evident in the first graph you provide:
it had quite a bit of scatter from factors you weren't bothering to
control for. Since you've not improved the dataset, all you've done is
to massage the existing datapoints into masking all of that variance."
You are the one who labeled my house as a tract home, now it's atrophy home. Tract home is correct. Nothing special in a part of Carmel
On 12/10/2025 3:24 PM, -hh wrote:
"...your 'results' speaking was evident in the first graph you
provide: it had quite a bit of scatter from factors you weren't
bothering to control for. Since you've not improved the dataset, all
you've done is to massage the existing datapoints into masking all of
that variance."
Yes, but that scatter was only 1 variable, OAT, that affects kWh used.
A major part of that apparent scatter was that there were other
independent variables in hand at the time but not controlled in the
scatter plot. When the additional independent variables are introduced
the kWh variance was significantly reduced.
The main ones are changes we
made in the house that reduced energy lost rate and thus energy required
to maintain temperature. Those changes are documented by date and expense.
No data were "massaged" other than ...
I'm doubting if you every built a regression model.
Inquired? Nope.
Called you out on the holes in your lame brag attempts? Yup!
Which is the same as asking for more to fill in the "holes".
You are the one who labeled my house as a tract home, now it's a
trophy home. Tract home is correct. Nothing special in a part of Carmel
full of $1+ million mansions. Compared to Alan's 500 sq ft Vancouver
condo you might be right, but in this area!
If it really is so humble, then you wouldn't be trying to compare
yourself to an urban condo...right? /s
Wrong. In the Vancouver market my home is a "trophy" worth well over $1 million. Not here, where housing is much more affordable.
We traveled a record number of days this year, almost 3 months. Not
because of you, because of some great opportunities.
Already planned 2 weeks in France next year, 2 weeks at Beaver creek
and some time in Florida. More to come.
Travel has to compete for time doing other things, after all.
On 12/10/25 17:22, Tom Elam wrote:
On 12/10/2025 3:24 PM, -hh wrote:
"...your 'results' speaking was evident in the first graph you
provide: it had quite a bit of scatter from factors you weren't
bothering to control for. Since you've not improved the dataset, all
you've done is to massage the existing datapoints into masking all of
that variance."
Yes, but that scatter was only 1 variable, OAT, that affects kWh used.
Which you represented as your work product, not your starting point.
Cherry-picking again, with what you choose to lie through omissions.
A major part of that apparent scatter was that there were other
independent variables in hand at the time but not controlled in the
scatter plot. When the additional independent variables are introduced
the kWh variance was significantly reduced.
Not documented then, and adding in additional variables can help to
tighten up a correlation, but it depends on how the weighing factors are tweaked...but that doesn't mean that there's solid scientific principles which justify the weighting factor values: over time, one learns who's
the better cheat by if the factors are based on optimizing the
correlation versus having solid scientific principles for their value.
The main ones are changes we made in the house that reduced energy
lost rate and thus energy required to maintain temperature. Those
changes are documented by date and expense.
Just because you used some obvious potential variables isn't proof that
you couldn't have missed others which were less obvious/easy.
The statistics joke is that you're searching for your lost quarter under
the streetlight, not where the quarter was actually dropped.
I'm doubting if you every built a regression model.
Whereas I'm seeing better why you had to work into your upper 70s.
Wrong. In the Vancouver market my home is a "trophy" worth well over
$1 million. Not here, where housing is much more affordable.
Oh, so what you actually meant to say was that your "$1M" claim actually
was how much it could be worth in Vancouver if it got teleported there.
Of course, considering Tommy's history & style of cherry-picking and stretching of things like what's "almost", a brag attempt of "almost 3 months" could be as modest as just (2 months + 1 day) = 61 days.
Already planned 2 weeks in France next year, 2 weeks at Beaver creek
and some time in Florida. More to come.
So 2026's looking to be another cheap year, at least so far.
Travel has to compete for time doing other things, after all.
Unfortunately the case. Disruptions from unexpected health issues are
an increasingly common factor as one gets older, for example. And some folk will be tempted to count days in the hospital as "vacation away" /s
-hh
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,090 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 07:48:13 |
| Calls: | 13,942 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 187,032 |
| D/L today: |
4,160 files (1,257M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,459,960 |