A few thoughts on cheating
Dave Scharf
As the father of a 5 year old and a 3 year old who is married to a doctor
who delivers babies I cannot imagine I will find 6 hours in the near future
to get through the whole thing. Nonetheless, I appreciate the GCA for having
given me pause to think about the issue of cheating in poker. I had never
given it any thought prior to the onslaught of GCA postings some time ago.
Does cheating occur? Of course it does. Absolutely. For sure.
I recall an article in Sports Illustrated some couple of years ago detailing
cheating incidents on the PGA tour (I am unable now to recall specifics
other than the article did list some specific instances). The point is that
cheating DOES occur on the PGA tour (at least occasionally). I am not
surprised by that for one second. After all, there is a lot of money and ego
at stake at PGA tour events.
Where you find rules, and there is an advantage given to one or more players
by breaking those rules you will invariably find somebody IS breaking those
rules. This is particularly true where there is money involved. And, even
more true where there is a LOT of money involved... one need only look to
the number of business people and politicians the world over who have been
tempted to "stretch" the rules for some personal gain.
If cheating is occurring in the PGA then you can be certain that it is
occurring in poker which, I am sorry to disappoint anyone, is far less
regulated than the PGA and tends to attract more than the occasional
unsavory character. Cheating is occurring.
It seems also obvious to me that the likelihood of running into cheating
increases in proportion to (1) How well protected the game is; and (2) How
much money is at stake.
On the other hand, I am far too removed from the epicenters of poker (Vegas
and Cal) to have a good handle on things. I have no idea how games are being
cheated beyond collusion which seems so obvious that even a rube like me
could figure out how to collude.
My simple conclusion (for me) is to avoid situations in which there is doubt
in my mind. If anything feels funny to me I simply don't play. Also, for me
poker has become a recreation... not a way I want to make my living, it just
wouldn't be any fun for me.
Regards,
Dave
www.canadianpoker.com
Mike Caro
Tapes" courtesy of GCA. I appreciate GCA for having giving me the
opportunity to see this private intimacy. I had never given it any
thought prior to the onslaught of GCA postings some time ago.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
Mike Caro
David Keiser
news:aumnfu813lt8lb8pl...@4ax.com
> "given me," not "giving me"
I guess you think this is Russ again,right Mike. You're right. I love
it when we have a long thread with 20 different people posting and 17
are Russ.
But on a sad note, this friend of mine from Tacoma that told me Russ
was hanging out at Rod Pardees old bowling alley on the hill in
Renton,Washington(boeing country) told me a couple guys with Nevada
plates were coming through Federal Way and stopped in the cardroom and
asked for directions. Well Russ maybe they have the bribe from Doyle and
the boys but I would be carful walking out that door at night or
starting up your car. After all you're not exactly the low profile type
of guy. They won't have a hard time tracking you down.
Or maybe a couple of locals looking to get rich,taping Russ and car go
boom and selling copies.RUSS what about my ticket you promised me
before you go to hell.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Octo the Genarian
hours it was way too short.
"Mike Caro" <ca...@caro.com> wrote in message
news:lulnfu4m6m20r2orm...@4ax.com...
Dave Scharf
Caro and I confess that I do not understand the tone of his posting?
*********************
Mike,
I apoligize if my post offended you or I have in some way done something
wrong.
I assume that my error is that I have gotten this tape which you view as not
being Russ's to give?
Is that right? I have been too long absent from RGP to have been party to
this kind of discussion. If I have ordered these tapes over your objection,
again, I sincerely apologize.
Regards,
Dave
www.canadianpoker.com
***************************
"Mike Caro" <ca...@caro.com> wrote in message
news:lulnfu4m6m20r2orm...@4ax.com...
Mike Caro
First, my comments weren't meant to be unkind. I was just trying to
point out something -- and not to you in particular. By using
approximations of your own words, I hoped everyone would see why it
might be inappropriate for you or anyone else to thank this man for
sending out tapes that were essentially my own private notes, that the
sender agreed not to distribute, that I believe to consist of
inappropriate, speculative, and often provably wrong statements about
many innocent people, and that I never distributed myself.
Second, had I taken the time to look closely and realized it was you,
rather than just some generic Dave, I would not have risked
embarrassing you by posting publicly. So, I apologize for doing that.
I would have contacted you privately. I know you personally, and
believe you to be an honorable man with the good of poker at heart.
However, in light of what I've stated on this forum, I'm sure people
can put themselves in my place and imagine how they'd feel if someone
were distributing their private videos. These videos do exactly what
the sender promised he would NOT do if I subsequently conducted an RGP
interview. He would not make any public unprovable, speculative
charges about potentially innocent people. So, distributing these
videos with me as interviewer is sleazy, to put it mildly (no matter
his absurd rationalizations for doing so). Using my name in his posts
to lure people into asking for them is monumentally unethical -- not
worthy of thanks.
When people thank him for receiving "their" copy and giving them the
opportunity to view the video, it just strikes me as odd -- like
publicly thanking me for stealing your wallet and sending it to them
free of charge.
Furthermore, I think some well-meaning people have lost track of
what's going on here. There are HONEST people who care about
preventing cheating. A DISHONEST informer might help these honest
people in their efforts, but you would at least expect that he would
be ashamed and contrite while confessing and be begging forgiveness.
We have here a man who publicly declares that he and his criminal
accomplices have stolen a million dollars from me -- and much more
from others. How dare he try to pass himself off as a guy on a
mission. He has disqualified himself from leading any mission. He is
morally obligated to contritely help those who are qualified --
nothing more. He has confessed his extremely serious crimes, and at
the same time he is attacking his victims.
And now, those of us who know better, suddenly watch in bewilderment
as he tries to repair his reputation by explaining poker strategy in
sophomoric ways, some of which are valid, and some of which are
extremely irrational, wrong, and dangerous. And in doing so, he is
stating that he is an expert and -- for some reason unknown to us --
people say "thanks." Not that these poker viewpoints aren't welcome on
this forum, but it seems bizarre to some of us (me, for sure) that
nobody on this forum who would normally correct these significant
errors does so. I can't do it personally, because that would confuse
David Sklansky who doesn't think I ever correct experts. (Actually,
David, I wouldn't mind in this case; I just don't like to publicly
embarrass people who are honorable and are contributing mostly
worthwhile insights.)
I'm not really sure what's happening, but it seems like Alice In
Wonderland to me. Folks, the man sending these unauthorized tapes is a
criminal and he is not seeking our forgiveness. He hasn't paid back
the money he stole. He isn't offering to pay back his victims a little
at a time as long as he lives. If you want to thank him for
distributing someone else's videos (when he could just tape his own
damn silly comments) and praise him as a poker strategist, you just go
right ahead.
But, I've had it. (1) There is no effective "rule of seven;" (2) Just
calling with nothing on the flop, then becoming aggressive when you
don't help, is a big losing strategy, unless used as a rare surprise
alternative; (3) You don't get to be a hero by confessing your crimes;
you only get to hope doing that confessing will help undo the terrible
damage you've done to other people's lives.
I'm glad we had this little talk.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002 23:11:45 -0500, "Dave Scharf"
SteadyEd O
to see you were USED by this guy. It appears you tried to help get the truth
out and are now being used to get a message out that you may not agree with...
Steady
Alex Freed
"Mike Caro" <ca...@caro.com> wrote in message
news:s9kofush6mklh0nn5...@4ax.com...
> Hi, Dave --
>
> First, my comments weren't meant to be unkind.
Unkind would be a compliment. Shocking would more accurately describe your
comments.
> I was just trying to point out something -- and not to you in particular.
Then use some class and common sense next time.
.
> Second, had I taken the time to look closely and realized it was you,
> rather than just some generic Dave, I would not have risked
> embarrassing you by posting publicly.
You didn't embarrass Dave. You embarrassed and disgraced yourself publicly.
>So, I apologize for doing that.
You should apologize to everybody, including yourself.
> I know you personally, and
> believe you to be an honorable man with the good of poker at heart.
That is exactly how I felt about you until I read this post. Check this
link to confirm my respect for you.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=caro+group:rec.gambling.poker+author:Alex+
author:Freed&hl=en&lr=&scoring=d&selm=NklT6.21934%240e3.19728395%40news1.rsm
1.occa.home.com&rnum=1
> However, in light of what I've stated on this forum, I'm sure people
> can put themselves in my place and imagine how they'd feel if someone
> were distributing their private videos.
You decided to open this door. David had nothing to do with this.
> Furthermore, I think some well-meaning people have lost track of
> what's going on here.
After reading your post about Dave and his wife, I nominate you for losing
the most.
>There are HONEST people who care about
> preventing cheating. A DISHONEST informer might help these honest
> people in their efforts, but you would at least expect that he would
> be ashamed and contrite while confessing and be begging forgiveness.
Begging forgiveness to the members of RGP would probably be your best
starting point now.
> He has confessed his extremely serious crimes, and at
> the same time he is attacking his victims.
So you figured it best to publicly attack the innocent? Who is worse?
> And now, those of us who know better, suddenly watch in bewilderment
> as he tries to repair his reputation > I just don't like to publicly
> embarrass people who are honorable and are contributing mostly
> worthwhile insights.)
Concerning your posts in this thread, I couldn't have said it any better.
> I'm glad we had this little talk.
In my opinion, all you did here was dig your hole a little deeper.
Up until today, I had the utmost respect for your character,
Alex Freed
Octo the Genarian
assumed after reading just a few lines of his post), then Caro's retort
would have been quite funny. As it turned out, it was embarassing, but hey,
you can't win 'em all.
"Alex Freed" <alex...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:IZ_K8.33064$155.1...@news2.west.cox.net...
Mike McClain
"Mike Caro" <ca...@caro.com> wrote :
>
> Second, had I taken the time to look closely and realized it was you,
> rather than just some generic Dave, I would not have risked
> embarrassing you by posting publicly. So, I apologize for doing that.
> I would have contacted you privately. I know you personally, and
> believe you to be an honorable man with the good of poker at heart.
You must have meant to say, "... rather than just some generic Dave
SCHARF...", since in your reply, you included Dave's last name:
> I have just received my copy of "Dave Scharf and His Wife Having Sex
> Tapes" courtesy of GCA.
>
> Furthermore, I think some well-meaning people have lost track of
> what's going on here. There are HONEST people who care about
> preventing cheating. A DISHONEST informer might help these honest
> people in their efforts, but you would at least expect that he would
> be ashamed and contrite while confessing and be begging forgiveness.
>
While I agree that an honest person doing an equivalent job of
preventing cheating deserves more accolades than his dishonest
counterpart, it's too late for Russ to have been an honest person.
At this point, the best he can be with respect to cheating is to
be a former cheater trying to clean things up. So it might be
more appropriate to compare him with his alternative, which
would be to quietly continue cheating.
More importantly, you seem to think that an honest player
can do as much to change the degree of cheating in poker as
a former cheater, and I don't think that is the case. We could
fill a room with honest people that could devote a year for
determining how to clean up poker, and nothing would get
accomplished, because none of us have any f'n clue what
is going on out there. Step One is to educate the honest
people, and I don't think any non-cheaters can provide the
education that a cheater can provide.
Additionally, people like yourself are handcuffed by the fear
of naming an innocent person as a cheat. While I understand
that this limitation can be a good thing, how on earth are honest
people ever going to get any first-hand evidence of cheating?
We cannot do so, and if you limit your interviews to honest
people only willing to name people that they have directly
cheated with, then there will be no interviews.
Russ is no hero. Yes, he paints himself as one, and that is a
fault of his. However, I think letting him loose will do more
to eliminate cheating (or at least educate people regarding
cheating) than anything that has been done recently, and more
than all of the concerned (but honest and clueless) people
can do.
I know that Russ has made a difference in the manner in
which I approach game selection. Additionally, his talk
has helped to get others to open up and discuss what they
know. Some of these discussions have been with me, and
some via another party, but I now know about a world that
I previously never knew existed. I don't know everything I
need to know, I don't know how to eliminate that world, and
I don't know how often it's caused me to say 'no' to my
son when he's wanted to play a $125 round of golf with me,
but I do know more than I did before.
Even if you don't agree with Russ' approach, and even if
you do not like the fact that he is distributing tapes in which
you are featured, as somebody who is concerned about
cheating in the poker world, you should just sit back and let
it take its course. It really is making a difference, and that
should be the most important thing. If Russ names an
innocent person, I think that person's reputation will survive.
>
> And now, those of us who know better, suddenly watch in bewilderment
> as he tries to repair his reputation by explaining poker strategy in
> sophomoric ways, some of which are valid, and some of which are
> extremely irrational, wrong, and dangerous. And in doing so, he is
> stating that he is an expert and -- for some reason unknown to us --
> people say "thanks." Not that these poker viewpoints aren't welcome on
> this forum, but it seems bizarre to some of us (me, for sure) that
> nobody on this forum who would normally correct these significant
> errors does so.
Okay, I feel like I've let you down on this one. I'm not
too shy to step in and voice my opinion when people spout
shaky theory, but I've remained quiet regarding Russ' advice.
I don't agree with all of Russ' advice, but I do enjoy getting
a look inside the mind of a person whom I believe can and has
beaten the high-limit games. Also, I thnk his experience
has caused him to develop a winning method without necessarily
a solid foundation. In other words, he is exploiting his
opponents, but might not completely understand that he is
also leaving an opening to be exploited. So while I might
not want to adopt a similar strategy, it does teach me more
about how extreme aggression can exploit others.
Russ teaches extreme aggression, and it works fairly often,
and it does not leave gaping holes to be exploited. However,
this can be preached without as firm a grasp of poker concepts
that you have. I was also stunned by his 'rule of seven', and
by the rave reviews that it received. However, I also thank
Russ for sharing his poker strategy with us. He's doing it for
free, and I'm sure I'll be able to learn from it, even if I need
to occasionally prune the rules of sevens.
Mike.
RazzO
>opportunity to view the video, it just strikes me as odd -- like
>publicly thanking me for stealing your wallet and sending it to them
>free of charge.
>I'm not really sure what's happening, but it seems like Alice In
>Wonderland to me. Folks, the man sending these unauthorized tapes is a
>criminal and he is not seeking our forgiveness. He hasn't paid back
>the money he stole. He isn't offering to pay back his victims a little
>at a time as long as he lives. If you want to thank him for
>distributing someone else's videos (when he could just tape his own
>damn silly comments) and praise him as a poker strategist, you just go
>right ahead.
No lawsuit? To at least prohibit the copying/distribution?
But, why-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y-y?
razzo
--
Play me online!
http://www.pokerworld.com/OnlinePoker
==================================
RAZZO.COM EMAIL:
http://www.razzo.com ra...@razzo.com
* *
POKERWORLD.COM http://www.pokerworld.com
==================================
John Harkness
>Hi, Dave --
>
>First, my comments weren't meant to be unkind. I was just trying to
>point out something -- and not to you in particular. By using
>approximations of your own words, I hoped everyone would see why it
>might be inappropriate for you or anyone else to thank this man for
>sending out tapes that were essentially my own private notes, that the
>sender agreed not to distribute, that I believe to consist of
>inappropriate, speculative, and often provably wrong statements about
>many innocent people, and that I never distributed myself.
>
Just out of curiousity, Mike, when you gave copies of your "private
notes" to an unscrupulous scumbag, exactly what did you think would
happen?
John Harkness
sweater
>When people thank him for receiving "their" copy and giving them the
>opportunity to view the video, it just strikes me as odd -- like
>publicly thanking me for stealing your wallet and sending it to them
>free of charge.
Mike, no hard feelings, but left to your own devices, the public
would have *never* seen these tapes.
While I am a strong proponent of private property laws, and am
politically conservative, sometimes the *public* has a need to know.
You would have effectively deep-sixed these tapes, and that would
have been detrimental to the game of POKER. In my opinion, of course.
Why not sue Russ ... or, alternatively, quit whining like a baby.
Mike Caro
Hi, Steady --
I appreciate your comments. And I tried very hard in my example to
Dave Scharf (who's name I typed, but it didn't ring a bell as being
the person I knew) to show how off-base so many posters have been by
thanking this sender of the tapes.
And my further explanation about the sender's stature and how he
should be perceived was something I believed needed to be said for a
long time. But, I'm deeply saddened by the replies and that you seem
to be one of the FEW who understands what I said.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
Mike Caro
<lar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Oh come on. He goofed up. If Dave Scharf really were Rust (which is what I
>assumed after reading just a few lines of his post), then Caro's retort
>would have been quite funny. As it turned out, it was embarassing, but hey,
>you can't win 'em all.
Hi, Octo --
Actually, I'm VERY comfortable with the comparison I made. I'm just
sorry that Dave's name didn't ring a bell, because I know him to have
the good of poker at heart. If I'd realized who it was immediately (he
hasn't posted much lately), I would have at least said, "I'm surprised
to hear this from you" or contacted him privately.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
Mike Caro
I'm going to assume you misunderstood my original "sex tape" reply to
Dave Scharf. It said exactly what I wanted to say.
You said:
"Begging forgiveness to the members of RGP would probably be your best
starting point now."
I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm totally comfortable with
what I wrote. It applies to Dave and everyone who has said thanks for
the tapes. I just didn't mean to single out Dave, because I know and
like him.
He understands what I said. I'm not sure why you don't.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
Mike Caro
You're right! I hadn't even noticed before reading your reply half an
hour ago that I had typed the full name. However, it didn't ring a
bell. It should have. I know Dave personally, and I would have
preferred to contact him privately. However, I still think my original
"sex tape" example conveys exactly what I wanted to say.
About your other comments: I don't fully agree with all of them, but
I'm comfortable with most. Thanks for taking the time to reply.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
Mike Caro
wrote:
Hi, John --
Strangely, I didn't think he would distribute them. The agreement we
signed was that he would get one copy for his records. I thought that
was reasonable. While I realized he could potentially break his
agreement and distribute the tapes, I didn't think he would. Why?
It was because he had originally come to me talking about making his
own tapes (which I had urged him not to do unless he could accompany
names with evidence). If he wanted to distribute this information on
video, he could have gone hog wild and said whatever he wanted without
cross-examination from me. He certainly could have staged it better
and put a microphone near where you could hear everyone, if he wanted
others to see and listen. And he was always capable of making and
distributing tapes with any unscrupulous allegations he chose about
anyone -- tapes that said exactly what HE wanted, that were much
better quality than these, with virtually no cost or time investment.
So, no, it didn't occur to me that he would go on THIS distribution
campaign (or that he wouldn't stop it when I demanded he do so) --
especially since that would put him in grave legal jeopardy with me,
something he could completely avoid by making his own tapes. If the
tapes were of a different nature, like footage of a one-of-a-kind
event catching cheating in action, that would be understandable.
I think the misunderstanding here centers around what I actually
"gave" him. I really only gave him a copy of his own words, something
he could easily supply on his own. So, I didn't think that agreeing in
advance to provide him with a copy for his records was a big deal, as
long as he agreed not to distribute it. Do you think he would have
vanished if he didn't have the video? Or do you think he would have
made his own, as he originally intended?
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
susan
susan
Susan Isaacs, my opinion is not worth as much and deserves to be slammed?
"Mike Caro" <ca...@caro.com> wrote in message
news:ejqpfu0m4thdf989t...@4ax.com...
A. Prock
>Hi, Mike --
>
>You're right! I hadn't even noticed before reading your reply half an
>hour ago that I had typed the full name. However, it didn't ring a
>bell. It should have. I know Dave personally, and I would have
>preferred to contact him privately. However, I still think my original
>"sex tape" example conveys exactly what I wanted to say.
Maybe, but I think it says things ABOUT YOU which
you probably didn't want to have said.
Lighten up, it's just life.
- Andrew
Jd00123
>From: Mike Caro ca...@caro.com
>I think the misunderstanding here centers around what I actually
>"gave" him. I really only gave him a copy of his own words, something
>he could easily supply on his own. So, I didn't think that agreeing in
>advance to provide him with a copy for his records was a big deal, as
>long as he agreed not to distribute it. Do you think he would have
>vanished if he didn't have the video? Or do you think he would have
>made his own, as he originally intended?
Than you should drop it and forget about it.He probabaly would have made his
own tapes anyway and found rgp all on his own and started distributing them
anyway.
John Harkness
I'm just a little bit amused by the whole thing because you're the guy
who's supposed to be so good at reading people.
John Harkness
Barbara Yoon
>>>> I just received my copy of "The Cheating Tapes"
>>>> courtesy of the GCA...
Mike Caro:
>>> I have just received my copy of "Dave Scharf and His Wife
>>> Having Sex Tapes" courtesy of GCA. I appreciate GCA for
>>> having giving me the opportunity to see this private intimacy.
Dave Scharf:
>> I really like Mr. Caro and I confess that I do not understand
>> the tone of his posting?
Mike Caro:
> Hi, Dave -- First, my comments weren't meant to be unkind. I was
> just trying to point out something -- and not to you in particular.
Well jeeez, Mike...you really just couldn't think of any other way
"to point out something" there without lapsing into such senseless
and crass bad taste, so unbecoming of you?!
Mike Caro
wrote:
>So what you are saying is that because my name is Susan Johnson instead of
>Susan Isaacs, my opinion is not worth as much and deserves to be slammed?
Hi, Susan --
No, I'm not saying that at all. I apologize for not making myself
clear to you. I've said quite the opposite many times. And I've said
that my comments DO apply to Dave's post, but that -- because I know
him and have dealt with him personally on previous occasions -- I
probably would have contacted him privately and let him make the
correction. His name is familiar to me, but it didn't register in my
mind that I was responding to him.
Besides, I don't think my response "slammed" him. I simply wrote -- in
a satiric way, not meant to be unkind -- what needed to be said. My
regret is that I muddied the waters by apologizing to Dave for
handling it that way. I should have just let my first reply stand on
its own merits (so, in that sense, you're right).
Wandering off topic, what's more disturbing to me is that nobody seems
to have picked up on the key issues in my second reply to Dave. The
central figure in this discussion, the person who sent the tapes, is
someone who -- in my opinion -- should, at a minimum, be in jail for
the rest of his life, if his confessions are true.
That strong stance shouldn't surprise anyone who has followed my
writings on the subject for the past 20 years. This certainly isn't
someone who should be respected in any way whatsoever. As I said, the
most he can hope for is to hang his head in shame, say he is very,
very sorry, pay back the money he owes, and stay in the background
while he dedicates his life to helping honest people, casinos, and law
enforcement deal with any situations that must be dealt with.
And, he must not conjure up make-believe allegations that make it hard
for those honest people to do their job. That's my position.
Additionally, I don't understand how this man (and others) can
criticize people for borrowing money and not paying it back. Although,
I agree that lent money should be repaid (and I wish I could collect
hundreds of thousands of dollars I've written off), there seems to be
a disconnect here. If a person admits to having borrowed money and
doesn't pay it back, is that worse than a person (like the sender of
the tapes) who admits to having stolen money and refuses to pay it
back?
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>Well jeeez, Mike...you really just couldn't think of any other way
>"to point out something" there without lapsing into such senseless
>and crass bad taste, so unbecoming of you?!
I think he was just making an analogy.
Mike Caro
wrote:
OK, Barbara --
You're obviously on the same acid trip, too. Can't anybody read
anything correctly on this forum unless it's stated in the most
literal sense?
I couldn't possibly have conveyed what I wanted to say any better than
I did. It didn't even border on "senseless," "crass," or "bad taste."
If I wanted to do that, I would have written it much more graphically.
What I wrote could comfortably be quoted in the Sunday paper.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
Mike Caro
Thanks, Wayno. But I'm so disappointed and surprised by the responses
so far that I'm fearful you just sent 10,000 people to the dictionary.
Analogy might be a new concept to some people on this forum.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
Aug
not given Russ a copy of the interview tapes, he would have claimed that you
were part of the cover-up, by hiding the definitive evidence of cheating. As
it stands, people can judge for themselves whether Russ is believable.
Aug
Mike Caro wrote:
I've got an analogy to ragweed.
Mike Caro
wrote:
Now, that's funny!
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
Jonathan Kaplan.com>
Mike,
i understood what you were trying to say.
i thought it was humorous, as well.
but i also thought it was a bit over the line, for you.
not for (almost) anyone else here, mind you, but OTL for you.
you are held to a higher standard, i think.
Jonathan
no matter where you go, there you are....
KlingvilleBill
Analogy: the study of assholes
Mike Caro
Kaplan<NutNoPair@aol<spam>.com> wrote:
>Mike,
>i understood what you were trying to say.
>i thought it was humorous, as well.
>
>but i also thought it was a bit over the line, for you.
>not for (almost) anyone else here, mind you, but OTL for you.
>you are held to a higher standard, i think.
>
>Jonathan
Hi, Jonathan --
I appreciate your viewpoint, and you might very well be right.
However, at the time I wrote it (and even now), I considered it to be
well short of over-the-line. No profanity, no graphic descriptions, no
discourtesy. Just a comparison to get my point across.
Still, you're probably correct, because many people seem to have
considered it OTL, judging by the posts.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
Dave Scharf
I have read all of the responses in this thread. I have a few things to say.
I will state them as simply as I can since we are all (apparently) a little
prone to misunderstanding.
(1) Mike, I hold you in high regard. I continue to do so. I understand your
analogy in your original post. I think, however, that it was a poor analogy
in poor taste. Frankly, I found it hurtful and insulting. I also find your
apology inadequate. Apologies that come with a "but" are never welcome by
the recipient.
Having said that, I will now "agree to disagree." I am done caring about it
because, dammit, "I like Mike."
(2) I can thank a criminal for making me cognizant of a situation. Perhaps
my original post was not clear (although I think it was, and you are overly
sensitive to this issue Mike... which is understandable).
I do not hold Russ in high regard. All that I was attempting to say was that
I have come to some conclusions about cheating after giving it some
INDEPENDENT thought. I went through that process BECAUSE of the deluge of
GCA crap here. If there had been no GCA in RGP I would not have spent the
time thinking about cheating that I have. But there is a GCA, and I did. I
thought my conclusions valid and I stated them here. In fact, the deluge of
GCA crap is what drove me away from RGP. We ain't what we used to be that's
for sure. I have been attempting to come back to RGP, but it's getting
tougher...
If I could draw an analogy, I just had $5000 stolen from me by an
unscrupulous contractor here in Saskatoon (true story - his trial for fraud
is this month). I gave him a $5000 deposit for $6000 job that he never
started. Was that stupid of me? Yes. Did I learn from the experience? Yes.
Will I make the same mistake? No. Do I have this scumbag to "thank" for my
new wisdom? Yes. It was in that context that I was thanking Russ.
(3) I like Mike.
(4) I have come to conclude that the distribution of the tape is not
appropriatte. I have not, by the way, viewed even a single minute of the
tape yet. At your pleasure Mike, I will either destroy my copy or mail it to
you. Let me know.
(5) One of the treasured poker souveniers I have is a photograph of Mike
Caro reading the final issue of "Canadian Poker Monthly" while seated at his
final table seat at the WSOP in 1998. It is an 8x10 and occupies space on my
wall beside the photograph of my own final table appearance in 1998 (not the
big one BTW). Both will remain on the wall, because dammit, I like Mike.
--
Regards,
Dave
www.canadianpoker.com
Mike Caro
I greatly appreciate your thoughtful response. In my mind, there was
nothing in "poor taste" about my original reply. It simply revised
your very own words and substituted a different thought (which was
necessarily attention-getting) to make a point.
There was no profanity, no crude imagery (although I'm beginning to
think some readers added their own). The reason I wished I hadn't
posted it was that I later realized that I had just replied to Dave
Scharf and that he was someone I knew and respected. In that light, I
wish I had contacted him privately first.
That's because, I like Dave.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
Barbara Yoon
>>>>>> I just received my copy of "The Cheating Tapes"
>>>>>> courtesy of the GCA...
Mike Caro:
>>>>> I have just received my copy of "Dave Scharf and His Wife
>>>>> Having Sex Tapes" courtesy of GCA. I appreciate GCA for
>>>>> having giving me the opportunity to see this private intimacy.
Dave Scharf:
>>>> I really like Mr. Caro and I confess that I do not understand
>>>> the tone of his posting?
Mike Caro:
>>> Hi, Dave -- First, my comments weren't meant to be unkind. I was
>>> just trying to point out something -- and not to you in particular.
me:
>> Well jeeez, Mike...you really just couldn't think of any other way
>> "to point out something" there without lapsing into such senseless
>> and crass bad taste, so unbecoming of you?!
Mike Caro:
> OK, Barbara -- You're obviously on the same acid trip, too.
> Can't anybody read anything correctly on this forum unless it's
> stated in the most literal sense? I couldn't possibly have conveyed
> what I wanted to say any better than I did. It didn't even border
> on "senseless," "crass," or "bad taste." If I wanted to do that,
> I would have written it much more graphically. What I wrote
> could comfortably be quoted in the Sunday paper.
Mike -- In your original post, I sensed more of a tone of 'anger
and frustration' -- albeit, your 'anger and frustration' with GCA,
rather than with Dave Scharf -- and you appeared to lash out at
poor innocent Dave in a way that seemed to me (and evidently
to some others too) as being in "bad taste"... But in any case,
the 'bottom line' is that whatever it is that you thought you were
"conveying" there really didn't work all that well...OK?!
Mike Caro
the actual first exchange carefully.
It's as simple as this: Videos that I consider my private property are
being distributed without my authorization. That makes me extremely
uncomfortable. Many people have posted thanking the sender. That seems
bizarre to me. It's as if I stole your wallet, announced that I would
send it free to anyone who wanted it, did so, and then the recipient
publicly posted a thank you.
Now to the issue at hand. Subsequent posts have said my reply was
crass, tasteless, showed I had no class, and worse. There was even the
suggestion that "begging forgiveness to the members of RGP would
probably be your best starting point now." But these replies didn't
quote what I wrote, so I'm guessing some people think I wrote
something much different than I did. So, here it is again...
Dave wrote (in part):
"I just received my copy of 'The Cheating Tapes' courtesy of the
GCA... I appreciate the GCA for having given me pause to think about
the issue of cheating in poker. I had never given it any thought prior
to the onslaught of GCA postings some time ago."
I replied (complete):
"I have just received my copy of 'Dave Scharf and His Wife Having Sex
Tapes' courtesy of GCA. I appreciate GCA for having giving me the
opportunity to see this private intimacy. I had never given it any
thought prior to the onslaught of GCA postings some time ago."
I'm comfortable with what I wrote in that context. It draws an analogy
that points out something that was important to me. It was not vulgar,
not profane, not graphic, and not a flame. I'm bewildered by some of
the responses, and I sincerely believe these came from well-meaning
people who "didn't get it," and thought I was saying something else.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
Dave Scharf
is, I admit, a natural implication of my words.
The problem is, an insulting tone is also implied by your original rely.
Your analogy is to something deeply intimate and personal. It is also
NATURAL to conclude that you intended and intimate personal attack.
Anyway... you want me to destroy this tape or do you want me to send it to
you?
--
Regards,
Dave
www.canadianpoker.com
"Mike Caro" <ca...@caro.com> wrote in message
news:shbqfuoo5nq08hq79...@4ax.com...
Barbara Yoon
> I don't think my response "slammed" him [Dave Scharf]. I simply
> wrote -- in a satiric way, not meant to be unkind -- what needed
> to have picked up on the key issues in my second reply to Dave.
Well, Mike, "that nobody seems to have picked up on the key issues
in my second reply to Dave" should not come as any real surprise,
after your first reply to Dave:
David Keiser
news:ufq8rie...@corp.supernews.com
I like Mike also because he's the only one that trips over his dick
more than me in RGP.
> (3) I like Mike.
I Thought it was Russ at first Mike and when I realized that it
wasn't I sent a private e-mail apology which was accepted. With your
transgression which was a lot more serious you tried to explain in
12,that's right,12 more posts. Has he recieved a private apology yet or
are we going to have another 12 explanations. It's that simple.
I have just received my copy of "Dave Scharf and His Wife Having Sex
Tapes" courtesy of GSA.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Mike Caro
<da...@canadianpoker.com> wrote:
>I note that I did not thank the GCA for the sending me the tape per se. It
>is, I admit, a natural implication of my words.
>
>The problem is, an insulting tone is also implied by your original rely.
>Your analogy is to something deeply intimate and personal. It is also
>NATURAL to conclude that you intended and intimate personal attack.
>
>Anyway... you want me to destroy this tape or do you want me to send it to
>you?
Dave --
"Deeply intimate and personal" was exactly the message I intended. But
ultimate that message wasn't about you (the hypothetical situation) --
it was about me (the real situation).
I guess one either sees it that way or sees it differently. I'm
surprised by these reactions (especially since I just quoted your
exact words and mine together). It seems IMPOSSIBLE to me that this
could then be taken as a personal attack. It could ONLY (both wordings
seen together) be taken as an analogy intended to make a point.
To answer your question: I would like you to destroy the tape, and I
would be grateful if you did. I believe everyone else who received a
copy from this unauthorized sender should do the same.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
Dave Scharf
post?
My wife (who does not play or like poker) would be made to feel VERY
uncomfortable by it and she has NOTHING to do with any of this. I accept
that it was not intended to be hurtful, but I cannot understand why you
resolutely stick to the view that there was nothing innapropriatte about it.
Obviously, despite saying I was dropping it... it is still troubling to me.
I trying to drop it Mike, but you keep defending it!
--
Regards,
Dave
www.canadianpoker.com
"Mike Caro" <ca...@caro.com> wrote in message
news:shbqfuoo5nq08hq79...@4ax.com...
Barbara Yoon
> Dave wrote (in part):
> "I just received my copy of 'The Cheating Tapes' courtesy of the
> GCA... I appreciate the GCA for having given me pause to think
> about the issue of cheating in poker. I had never given it any
> thought prior to the onslaught of GCA postings some time ago."
>
> I replied (complete):
> "I have just received my copy of 'Dave Scharf and His Wife
> Having Sex Tapes' courtesy of GCA. I appreciate GCA for
> having giving me the opportunity to see this private intimacy.
> I had never given it any thought prior to the onslaught of GCA
> postings some time ago."
>
> I'm comfortable with what I wrote in that context. It draws an analogy
> that points out something that was important to me. It was not vulgar,
> not profane, not graphic, and not a flame. I'm bewildered by some of
> the responses, and I sincerely believe these came from well-meaning
> people who "didn't get it," and thought I was saying something else.
Mike -- for you to say here that I and others "didn't get it" is something
of an insult to us. I can't speak for how others perceived it, but my own
sense of it was that you, in some understandable anger and frustration
with GCA, were lashing out there at somebody who really didn't deserve
any such treatment (and lashing out in "bad taste" too). And so if we
"didn't get it," that's mainly because, in my opinion, YOU chose a very
poor way to express it in the context -- and that's especially disappointing
in someone as yourself who focuses in poker so much on 'image' and
'perception' (and who created 'The Book Of Tells' no less!)...OK?!
Smorgass Bored
Thanks, Wayno. But I'm so disappointed and surprised by the responses so
far that I'm fearful you just sent 10,000 people to the dictionary.
Analogy might be a new concept to some people on this forum.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
(*<~ I've been reading/lurking here for 5 years, but seldom post. I've
read all GCA's posts and all the responses from everyone from the very
beginning. I think that Russ is a scumbag, but makes 'some' valid
points. I think that he knows 'some' cheaters, but has named others out
of vindictiveness.
I wouldn't mind seeing his tape despite the production quality because
it interests me. I haven't sent my address to Russ because YOU
didn't/don't want it distributed and I respect your wishes. I understood
your satiric analogy and while I think that you 'might' have stated your
case in a more desirable fashion, I don't think that it demeans you as
bady as some have written. I accept your apology to Dave as sincere and
won't hold your original post against you in the future. I've never met
you and I'm not sucking up. I'm simply giving my opinion as a long time
lurker.
regards,
Doug
Dave Scharf
--
Regards,
Dave
www.canadianpoker.com
"Mike Caro" <ca...@caro.com> wrote in message
news:b7dqfuo69lfjh1p8f...@4ax.com...
David Keiser
Apology not
analogy
>
> To answer your question: I would like you to destroy the tape, and I
> would be grateful if you did. I believe everyone else who received a
> copy from this unauthorized sender should do the same.
Mike you got to be the dumbest dickweed i've ever seen if you believe
that one person is going to burn the tape if they got it. Since we're on
analogys and not apologies,don't you think this is like closing the barn
door after the cows got out. And with all you're crying threads like
this one all you're doing is making a mountain out of a molehill and
making sure every new reader to RGP wants a copy. Are you sure you're
not in this with Russ. It seems you're his biggest supporter.
Mike Caro
<da...@canadianpoker.com> wrote:
>Let me ask one other question Mike... would Phylis be proud of your original
>post?
>
>My wife (who does not play or like poker) would be made to feel VERY
>uncomfortable by it and she has NOTHING to do with any of this. I accept
>that it was not intended to be hurtful, but I cannot understand why you
>resolutely stick to the view that there was nothing innapropriatte about it.
>
>Obviously, despite saying I was dropping it... it is still troubling to me.
>I trying to drop it Mike, but you keep defending it!
Hi, Dave --
I simply don't get it. I'm sure my wife would have NO problem with
that post. I don't think ANYONE would have any problem with the post
if there hadn't been unlucky, immediate, strange feedback that
triggered everything else.
It didn't say anything about you or your wife or put you in any light
that should make you the least bit uncomfortable, except possibly that
it was critical (by analogy) of some of the wording in your post. This
was just a way of saying, "Here's a self-contained example of my
argument."
I was the one who was uncomfortable about your post. So, I used almost
your exact words to show you and others why I thought this attitude
was unreasonable.
HOLY SHIT! Let's get some outside judges in here on this one. Maybe
I've lost my mind and everyone else is sane. Could happen. I feel like
I'm on another planet. For the life of me, I can't see anything
whatsoever hurtful, inappropriate, vulgar, or graphic about my reply.
And I have no idea why your wife would be uncomfortable by that post,
in the context it was presented.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
Mike Caro
You simply don't get it. Period.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
On Tue, 4 Jun 2002 18:02:27 -0400, "Barbara Yoon" <by...@erols.com>
wrote:
>Mike Caro:
Mike Caro
<da...@canadianpoker.com> wrote:
>My copy of the tape has been destroyed. Without ever viewing it I might add.
Dave --
You are, indeed, a man of honor -- as I always knew you to be.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
Alex Freed
> Obviously, despite saying I was dropping it... it is still troubling to
me.
> I trying to drop it Mike, but you keep defending it!
He keeps digging his hole deeper and deeper with every non-apologetic post.
I once thought that Mike was one of the sharpest tools in the shed. I am
now deeply disappointed that he still has no idea that he should fold this
analogy hand and apologize (without any buts or acid jokes) immediately and
sincerely.
Alex Freed
Mike Caro
Sorry, too late. We moved this discussion to a new subject some time
ago. All the messages relate to "reading comprehension" now.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
Mike Caro
wrote:
>Dave Scharf" <da...@canadianpoker.com> wrote in message...
>> Obviously, despite saying I was dropping it... it is still troubling to
>me.
>> I trying to drop it Mike, but you keep defending it!
>
>He keeps digging his hole deeper and deeper with every non-apologetic post.
>I once thought that Mike was one of the sharpest tools in the shed. I am
>now deeply disappointed that he still has no idea that he should fold this
>analogy hand and apologize (without any buts or acid jokes) immediately and
>sincerely.
>
>Alex Freed
Alex --
What is it you want me to apologize for? Tell me specifically, and if
I agree, I will.
I had fully expected an apology from you for your blatant and venomous
misrepresentation of my first reply (which you somehow wholly
misinterpreted). I have rationally explained this situation, even
putting the two quotes side by side for comparison. How you can still
hold your ground on this is baffling to me.
Nonetheless, I appreciate your viewpoints.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
Barbara Yoon
>> Let me ask one other question Mike... would Phylis be proud of
>> your original post? My wife (who does not play or like poker)
>> would be made to feel VERY uncomfortable by it and she has
>> NOTHING to do with any of this. I accept that it was not intended
>> to be hurtful, but I cannot understand why you resolutely stick to
>> the view that there was nothing innapropriatte about it. Obviously,
>> despite saying I was dropping it... it is still troubling to me.
>> I trying to drop it Mike, but you keep defending it!
Mike Caro:
> Hi, Dave -- I simply don't get it. I'm sure my wife would have
> NO problem with that post. I don't think ANYONE would have
> any problem... ... I was the one who was uncomfortable about
> your post [*WHY?!*]. ... HOLY SHIT! Maybe I've lost my mind
> and everyone else is sane. Could happen. I feel like I'm on another
> planet. For the life of me, I can't see anything whatsoever hurtful,
> inappropriate... And I have no idea why...
Mike -- understanding how others perceive us is a key *POKER* skill,
which you of all people surely must possess -- so just step back here,
take a deep breath, and *THINK* about it (and it really couldn't hurt
to ask Phyllis too!)...OK?!
Dave Scharf
OK, I'm done with this thread. It appears to be an agree to disgree
situation.
Mike's original point, like mine, has been long since lost.
--
Regards,
Dave
www.canadianpoker.com
"Dave Scharf" <da...@canadianpoker.com> wrote in message
news:ufnjmgs...@corp.supernews.com...
> I just received my copy of "The Cheating Tapes" courtesy of the GCA...
>
> As the father of a 5 year old and a 3 year old who is married to a doctor
> who delivers babies I cannot imagine I will find 6 hours in the near
future
> to get through the whole thing. Nonetheless, I appreciate the GCA for
having
> given me pause to think about the issue of cheating in poker. I had never
> given it any thought prior to the onslaught of GCA postings some time ago.
>
> Does cheating occur? Of course it does. Absolutely. For sure.
>
> I recall an article in Sports Illustrated some couple of years ago
detailing
> cheating incidents on the PGA tour (I am unable now to recall specifics
> other than the article did list some specific instances). The point is
that
> cheating DOES occur on the PGA tour (at least occasionally). I am not
> surprised by that for one second. After all, there is a lot of money and
ego
> at stake at PGA tour events.
>
> Where you find rules, and there is an advantage given to one or more
players
> by breaking those rules you will invariably find somebody IS breaking
those
> rules. This is particularly true where there is money involved. And, even
> more true where there is a LOT of money involved... one need only look to
> the number of business people and politicians the world over who have been
> tempted to "stretch" the rules for some personal gain.
>
> If cheating is occurring in the PGA then you can be certain that it is
> occurring in poker which, I am sorry to disappoint anyone, is far less
> regulated than the PGA and tends to attract more than the occasional
> unsavory character. Cheating is occurring.
>
> It seems also obvious to me that the likelihood of running into cheating
> increases in proportion to (1) How well protected the game is; and (2) How
> much money is at stake.
>
> On the other hand, I am far too removed from the epicenters of poker
(Vegas
> and Cal) to have a good handle on things. I have no idea how games are
being
> cheated beyond collusion which seems so obvious that even a rube like me
> could figure out how to collude.
>
> My simple conclusion (for me) is to avoid situations in which there is
doubt
> in my mind. If anything feels funny to me I simply don't play. Also, for
me
> poker has become a recreation... not a way I want to make my living, it
just
> wouldn't be any fun for me.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
> www.canadianpoker.com
>
>
Georgi Zolla
>I have just received my copy of "Dave Scharf and His Wife Having Sex
>Tapes" courtesy of GCA. I appreciate GCA for having giving me the
>opportunity to see this private intimacy. I had never given it any
>thought prior to the onslaught of GCA postings some time ago.
I have just received my copy of "Mike Caro and His Wife Having Sex
with a Dead Parrot Tapes" courtesy of Mike Caro. I appreciate Mike
Caro for having giving me the opportunity to ponder this private
intimacy. I had never given it any thought prior to the onslaught of
"Wife Having Sex" postings today.
Mike Caro
WAY... BECAUSE... YOU... OFTEN... SEE... THINGS... TOO... LITERALLY...
AND... ARE... QUICK... TO... TAKE...OFFENSE...OK?!
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
On Tue, 4 Jun 2002 18:54:42 -0400, "Barbara Yoon" <by...@erols.com>
wrote:
>Dave Scharf:
Mike Caro
wrote:
Georgi --
The parrot was totally unresponsive. And we'll never try that again.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
Lee Munzer
"David Keiser"
> I like Mike also because he's the only one that trips over his dick
> more than me in RGP.
To say Badger is dickless is totally uncalled for!
Lee
Jd00123
Mike Caro
<da...@canadianpoker.com> wrote:
>Mike...
>
>OK, I'm done with this thread. It appears to be an agree to disgree
>situation.
>
>Mike's original point, like mine, has been long since lost.
Hi, Dave --
Just so you know, it doesn't matter to me whether we agree on this
issue or not. You're always OK in my book -- and then some. And I'm
sorry that my words hurt you, even though I still think they were
perfectly appropriate and to the point. (But that's one of only a few
areas where we disagree, right?)
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
Jd00123
>From: "Barbara Yoon" by...@erols.com
> I can't speak for how others perceived it, but my own
>sense of it was that you, in some understandable anger and frustration
>with GCA, were lashing out there at somebody who really didn't deserve
>any such treatment (and lashing out in "bad taste" too).
Maybe I dont get it either,while I dont think its a big deal, and not THAT
inappropriate(maybe I would if Mike knew me and my wife personanlly),this is
exactly how it came across to me.when I read it I thought to myself"looks like
Mike has had enough of this crap and is pulling off the gloves on some poor
slob newbie that just blundeded in,poor bastard"Thats the way it struck me.But
BFD
Jd00123
>Georgi --
>
>The parrot was totally unresponsive. And we'll never try that again.
Thats what the parrot said about you.Hes running his beak over on rec parrots.
David Keiser
asking to see pornography of you and your wife.
> >OK, I'm done with this thread.
After RGP listening to you cry like the snibling baby you are, here
you
come with 23 posts saying the same thing you've been crying hundreds of
times before about. Plus the one about wanting to watch a video of a
friend and his wife being intimate. Mike you're a dumb dickweed and you
just don't get it that you crossed the line.
I still think they were perfectly appropriate and to the point. (But
that's one of only a few
> areas where we disagree,
Hey dimwit,he said he's finished and you just got to get the last
word in when you're 100% wrong. Read back through the 60 some posts in
this thread and see if ONE person said you were right.
right?)
Barbara Yoon
>> something of an insult to us. I can't speak for how others
>> perceived it, but my own sense of it was that you, in some
>> understandable anger and frustration with GCA, were lashing
>> out there at somebody who really didn't deserve any such
>> treatment (and lashing out in "bad taste" too). And so if we
>> "didn't get it," that's mainly because, in my opinion, YOU
>> chose a very poor way to express it in the context -- and that's
>> especially disappointing in someone as yourself who focuses
>> in poker so much on 'image' and 'perception' (and who created
>> 'The Book Of Tells' no less!)...OK?!
Mike Caro:
> Barbara -- You simply don't get it. Period. Straight Flushes...
But Mike...after your very tortured/stretched/convoluted 'explanations,'
I now *DO* "get" what you 'meant' -- but then the issue becomes that
what you 'meant' is not at all how it came across to me (and seemingly
to some others too). In my own opinion here, you made a very poor
choice of expression (even disregarding the "bad taste" aspect)...OK?!
Jd00123
>In my own opinion here, you made a very poor
>choice of expression (even disregarding the "bad taste" aspect)...OK?!
Hey does anyone rememeber Dollys analogy about Mike having a homosexual orgy in
a hotel room in Vegas?Just thought it was germane all of a sudden.
AL
>From: "David Keiser" dmk1...@aol.com
> here
>you
>come with 23 posts saying the same thing you've been crying hundreds of
>times before about.
im... must have gotten posting lessons from you Dave?
>Mike you're a dumb dickweed and you
>just don't get it that you crossed the line.
crossed the line? Then he musst have met you on the other side?
> Hey dimwit,he said he's finished and you just got to get the last
>word in when you're 100% wrong.
haHA - you sure taught him this one good!!
Funny how you can see things in others but not yourself.
AL
this was very good, JD!
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
> Hey dimwit,he said he's finished and you just got to get the last
>word in when you're 100% wrong. Read back through the 60 some posts in
>this thread and see if ONE person said you were right.
Hey, dickhead, I agreed with him. Mainly on the grounds that
what he said would never be allowed on prime time TV, because it
wasn't offensive enough for today's standards, not to mention the fact
that several posters in this newsgroup-- you and me, mainly-- are more
offensive than that on a daily basis. But don't bother responding--
it's futile, because I'm off to the Tuesday Night Game with these
other chuckleheads.
hahahahaha -- i'm outa here
All the best,
Mr. Hold'em
Mike Caro
wrote:
>>> Mike -- for you to say here that I and others "didn't get it" is
Barbara --
You're just wrong on this one. Period.
I agree that, strangely, some people didn't understand the analogy in
which I simply used his own words and substituted a different tape
title to make a point about how I was being damaged. But there was
nothing inappropriate, vulgar, profane, or graphic about what I wrote.
I think -- judging by a few of the reactions -- that there must be
additional imagery in people's mind that magically appears. What I
wrote was mild as mild can be.
You wanna know the truth. I FELT like writing a strong reply, but I
decided to do something much more civil -- to point out that I was
uncomfortable by using an example. But in that short example, there is
nothing shocking or spiteful whatsoever. Did you READ my
"side-by-side" (figuratively) comparisons of his words and mine? Since
I was responding directly to his post, and quoted his post in my
reply, I assumed most people would understand my point.
Now, here's the interesting part: MOST people probably do, based on a
flood of e-mail I've gotten today. Very many people seem as bewildered
as I am about the negative interpretation of my reply. I'm especially
amazed to see you siding with the people who thought it was in "bad
taste" -- probably because they weren't reading carefully.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
Mike Caro
Dave --
I try to be nice, but you make it difficult. Why do you always say
things to people, no matter who they are or what their point, like
"crybaby" and "snibling baby." Is that some kind of secret technique
someone taught you to win arguments? You seem to use it when it least
applies.
By the way, I'll bet that the vast majority of intelligent people did
not find my post inappropriate or unkind. I'll bet they thought it
made a lot of sense.
By the way, you are libeling me in this post. Mike Caro did NOT ask to
see pornography of anyone and anyone's wife. This single statement
proves to me that you either deliberately pretend not to understand or
you are presently suffering from a significant problem with reading
comprehension.
I try to be nice to everyone, but you're really a horrible person. Fix
it.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
AL
some things in life are unfixable, Mike.
Others just don't warrant the effort.
Hard to tell which is which, but in most cases it really doesn't matter.
Mike Caro
>Read back through the 60 some posts in
>this thread and see if ONE person said you were right.
Let's leave you and me out of the count. MOST of the people agreed
with me. And even Barbara Yoon, one of the most frequent posters who
didn't like my reply, said she understood my meaning and my intent.
Why do you post that not one person said I was right? I really want to
know how your mind works.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
RMITCHCOLL
Hello Mike , I am just an average (below) poster who has never met either of
you(Dave). But I "know" both of you from years of rgping. I must admit that
when I read your original sex tape post I was aghast...especially when you
directed it towards Dave by name. IMHO if you had made a more generic post,
your point would have been better perceived. But by directing a seemingly
disrespectful post towards Dave your point got lost in the perceived attack on
Dave and his wife. Like Dave, I still like Mike.
Respectfully
Randy Collack
Barbara Yoon
>> which you of all people surely must possess -- so just step back here,
>> take a deep breath, and *THINK* about it (and it really couldn't hurt
>> to ask Phyllis too!)...OK?!
Mike Caro:
> BUT... YOU... HELPED... PEOPLE... TO... PERCEIVE... IT...
> THIS... WAY... BECAUSE... YOU... OFTEN... SEE... THINGS...
> TOO... LITERALLY... AND... ARE... QUICK... TO... TAKE...
> OFFENSE...OK?! Straight Flushes...
Mike -- either you're insulting everybody else's independence
of thought in this, or do you really believe that ANYBODY,
let alone ME (and other than RazzO, of course), has any such
'influence' over the opinions of others here in RGP?!
David Keiser
first post thinking it was Russ. Idid the same thing. But when he
e-mailed me explaining that he was a RGP poster that hadn't been active
for awhile I sent him an E-mail back with an apology. And I hadn't made
reference to sex videos of him and his wife. See I try to treat people
the way I feel they deserve. Assholes(dork) get the rough ride(no mercy)
but someone that is just cruising along finding knowledge or sharing I
don't give them the business.
You make a very good living off of people like Dave and what you did
in the thread was grind him down till finally he said he burned the tape
and was finished because it wasn't worth it to him and it was obvious
that you weren't going to properly apoligized for your comment about his
wife.
That got my attention and that's why you got some business. I fell that
you didn't think of your responsibility to make things right only your
exalted status in the poker world.
> Let's leave you and me out I really want to
> know how your mind works.
>
> Straight Flushes,
> Mike Caro
Barbara Yoon
>> Smart move. After twenty posts Mike Caro sees nothing wrong
>> listening to you cry like the snibling baby you are, here you come
>> with 23 posts saying the same thing you've been crying hundreds
>> of times before about. Plus the one about wanting to watch a video
>> of a friend and his wife being intimate. Mike you're a dumb dickweed
>> he's finished and you just got to get the last word in when you're
>> and see if ONE person said you were right.
Mike Caro:
> Let's leave you and me out of the count. MOST of the people agreed
> with me.
Really??!! Wow -- that sure didn't seem so at all to me...
Mike Caro:
> And even Barbara Yoon, one of the most frequent posters who
> didn't like my reply, said she understood my meaning and my intent.
Well, I so "understood" what you say was in your mind at the time
only "after your very tortured/stretched/convoluted 'explanations'..."
-- but my opinion of it all remains that, especially for a professional
writer, "you made a very poor choice of expression (even disregarding
the 'bad taste' aspect)"...
Mike Caro:
> Why do you post that not one person said I was right?
> I really want to know how your mind works.
Ummm.....Mike.....are you really really sure about that?!
John M. Davis
> BUT... YOU... HELPED... PEOPLE... TO... PERCEIVE... IT... THIS...
> WAY... BECAUSE... YOU... OFTEN... SEE... THINGS... TOO... LITERALLY...
> AND... ARE... QUICK... TO... TAKE...OFFENSE...OK?!
My $0.02: I assumed your post was a forgery after reading a line or
two and skipped to the next post. I was under the impression that Mike
Caro didn't have such a tin ear. I still hold out some hope that Mike
Caro is on vacation, and some clown continues posting in his name.
But maybe that's what Barbara Yoon would have told me to think, so
it's probably not independent thought. Or it could be the acid that
everyone who disagrees with you seems to have had. Or the cough syrup.
AL
>Date: 6/4/02 9:2
>(dork) get the rough ride(no mercy)
I'm not playing anymore.
You got old (literally and figuratively)
David Keiser
news:20020604220758...@mb-fz.aol.com
Does that mean finished, kaput,fold,no action,i'm outta here ,not
playing with you anymore. LMFAO You change your mind(i use that loosely)
ever day.
Mike Caro
<dmk1...@aol.com> wrote:
> OK Mike heres how I see it you insulted Dave and his family in your
>first post thinking it was Russ. Idid the same thing. But when he
>e-mailed me explaining that he was a RGP poster that hadn't been active
>for awhile I sent him an E-mail back with an apology. And I hadn't made
>reference to sex videos of him and his wife. See I try to treat people
>the way I feel they deserve. Assholes(dork) get the rough ride(no mercy)
>but someone that is just cruising along finding knowledge or sharing I
>don't give them the business.
> You make a very good living off of people like Dave and what you did
>in the thread was grind him down till finally he said he burned the tape
>and was finished because it wasn't worth it to him and it was obvious
>that you weren't going to properly apoligized for your comment about his
>wife.
>That got my attention and that's why you got some business. I fell that
>you didn't think of your responsibility to make things right only your
>exalted status in the poker world.
Fair enough, Dave. Thanks for expressing yourself in a way I clearly
understand. Your points are noted.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
Newgca
Moron.
Russ G
Newgca
>Tapes" courtesy of GCA.
When backed into a corner, this is what you should expect from your "GENIUs"
Russ G
Mike Caro
wrote:
>David Keiser:
Barbara --
Dave wrote about having received my tapes that were distributed
without my permission (in part):
"I just received my copy of 'The Cheating Tapes' courtesy of the
GCA... I appreciate the GCA for having given me pause to think about
the issue of cheating in poker. I had never given it any thought prior
to the onslaught of GCA postings some time ago."
This is how I chose to make my point (complete reply):
"I have just received my copy of 'Dave Scharf and His Wife Having Sex
Tapes' courtesy of GCA. I appreciate GCA for having giving me the
opportunity to see this private intimacy. I had never given it any
thought prior to the onslaught of GCA postings some time ago."
Conclude what you wish. Dave Scharf has reported that he has since
destroyed the tape at my request. I have always known him to be an
honorable man with the good of poker at heart. Because of this, I wish
I would have contacted him privately before posting. But I didn't
place the name.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
tadperry
"Mike Caro" <ca...@caro.com> wrote in message
news:shbqfuoo5nq08hq79...@4ax.com...
> Hi, everyone. I'm afraid some people who are responding didn't read
> the actual first exchange carefully.
>
> It's as simple as this: Videos that I consider my private property are
> being distributed without my authorization. That makes me extremely
> uncomfortable. Many people have posted thanking the sender. That seems
> bizarre to me. It's as if I stole your wallet, announced that I would
> send it free to anyone who wanted it, did so, and then the recipient
> publicly posted a thank you.
>
> Now to the issue at hand. Subsequent posts have said my reply was
> crass, tasteless, showed I had no class, and worse. There was even the
> suggestion that "begging forgiveness to the members of RGP would
> probably be your best starting point now." But these replies didn't
> quote what I wrote, so I'm guessing some people think I wrote
> something much different than I did. So, here it is again...
>
> Dave wrote (in part):
>
> "I just received my copy of 'The Cheating Tapes' courtesy of the
> GCA... I appreciate the GCA for having given me pause to think about
> the issue of cheating in poker. I had never given it any thought prior
> to the onslaught of GCA postings some time ago."
>
>
> "I have just received my copy of 'Dave Scharf and His Wife Having Sex
> Tapes' courtesy of GCA. I appreciate GCA for having giving me the
> opportunity to see this private intimacy. I had never given it any
> thought prior to the onslaught of GCA postings some time ago."
>
> that points out something that was important to me. It was not vulgar,
> not profane, not graphic, and not a flame. I'm bewildered by some of
> the responses, and I sincerely believe these came from well-meaning
> people who "didn't get it," and thought I was saying something else.
Once you throw sex into the mix, everyone tends to go crazy. Rational
thought bolts from the scene. Some have misinterpreted you intentionally,
unwilling "to get it" at all.
tvp
tadperry
> On Tue, 4 Jun 2002 16:03:14 -0500, "Dave Scharf"
> <da...@canadianpoker.com> wrote:
>
> >Let me ask one other question Mike... would Phylis be proud of your
original
> >post?
> >
> >My wife (who does not play or like poker) would be made to feel VERY
> >uncomfortable by it and she has NOTHING to do with any of this. I accept
> >that it was not intended to be hurtful, but I cannot understand why you
> >resolutely stick to the view that there was nothing innapropriatte about
it.
> >
> >Obviously, despite saying I was dropping it... it is still troubling to
me.
> >I trying to drop it Mike, but you keep defending it!
>
> Hi, Dave --
>
> I simply don't get it. I'm sure my wife would have NO problem with
> that post. I don't think ANYONE would have any problem with the post
> if there hadn't been unlucky, immediate, strange feedback that
> triggered everything else.
>
> It didn't say anything about you or your wife or put you in any light
> that should make you the least bit uncomfortable, except possibly that
> it was critical (by analogy) of some of the wording in your post. This
> was just a way of saying, "Here's a self-contained example of my
> argument."
>
> I was the one who was uncomfortable about your post. So, I used almost
> your exact words to show you and others why I thought this attitude
> was unreasonable.
>
> HOLY SHIT! Let's get some outside judges in here on this one. Maybe
> I've lost my mind and everyone else is sane. Could happen. I feel like
> I'm on another planet. For the life of me, I can't see anything
> whatsoever hurtful, inappropriate, vulgar, or graphic about my reply.
> And I have no idea why your wife would be uncomfortable by that post,
> in the context it was presented.
Because it's about *sex*, Mike, and people are insane on that issue!
tvp
Brwencino
>> HOLY SHIT! Let's get some outside judges in here on this one. Maybe
>> I've lost my mind and everyone else is sane. Could happen. I feel like
>> I'm on another planet. For the life of me, I can't see anything
>> whatsoever hurtful, inappropriate, vulgar, or graphic about my reply.
Ok, I don't know any of you, although I certainly have heard of you Mr. Caro.
My vote is that you have not commited any crime and you are not to be shuned,
but your remark is in bad taste and childish. I would suggest that you
consider growing up Mr. Caro.
Mike Caro
Do you understand my remark that you think was "in bad taste and
childish."
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
Brwencino
>Do you understand my remark that you think was "in bad taste and
>childish."
>
>Straight Flushes,
>Mike Caro
I understand your point perfectly. You made your point very well. Do you
understand my point? My point is that in making your point you needlessly used
an analogy that was in bad taste and childish. Grow up Mr. Caro.
A. Prock
>>I now *DO* "get" what you 'meant' -- but then the issue becomes that
>>what you 'meant' is not at all how it came across to me (and seemingly
>>to some others too). In my own opinion here, you made a very poor
>>choice of expression (even disregarding the "bad taste" aspect)...OK?!
>
>Barbara --
>
>You're just wrong on this one. Period.
>
>I agree that, strangely, some people didn't understand the analogy in
>which I simply used his own words and substituted a different tape
>title to make a point about how I was being damaged. But there was
>nothing
>inappropriate,
false (IMHO)
>vulgar,
debatable (IMHO)
>profane,
probably not (IMHO)
>or graphic about what I wrote.
definatly not. (IMHO)
And I live in Oakland CA, the place with the most
lax "community standards" when it comes to obscenity.
But then, I don't represent the community, just myself.
- Andrew
Mike Caro
OK, then we disagree that the analogy was in bad taste and childish. I
thought it was mild as mild can be, even polite. No profanity, nothing
graphic, nothing mean-spirited. It was almost word-for-word from the
post I was replying to. I simply substituted a different tape title to
make the point. If I had used a "Ping Pong" title, it would not have
made the point.
Why are you telling me to grow up? That's truly insulting -- something
I'd never do, because that's meant to be confrontational. And I take
pride in my posts.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
David Keiser
Hey we do have something in common,I take pride in mine also, except
the ones I fuck up.
And I take pride in my posts.
>
> Straight Flushes,
> Mike Caro
Mike Caro
I greatly appreciate your opinion, because I believe it's sincere and
may reflect what others are thinking. I also always respect what you
have to say.
To me, the mild sex reference wasn't offensive, because it was within
the context of an analogy and therefore shouldn't be taken as
targeting anyone. If someone had said that to me, I would have
responded with, "Good point," or "I disagree," or something, but I
certainly would NOT have been offended by the choice of words.
I might have been offended that I had been publicly chastised (albeit
in a gentle way, by example) by a friend. And I immediately posted
that I regretted making the post that way, when I realized who Dave
was -- and that I knew and liked him.
But, then, the debate turned to the tastelessness of my post and
someone even said I should beg RGP's forgiveness. Frankly, I just
don't understand that attitude one bit.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
Mike Caro
<dmk1...@aol.com> wrote:
>"Mike Caro" <ca...@caro.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
> Hey we do have something in common,I take pride in mine also, except
>the ones I fuck up.
Dave --
I'm betting you take pride in the REACTION you get, more than the
posts themselves.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
Brwencino
>thought it was mild as mild can be, even polite
Ah, you might find an old saying useful in light of the responses to your
post---"When one person tells you you're drunk, laugh it off. When two people
tell you you're drunk, go home and sleep it off."
BillM
gorgo...@aol.com (Georgi Zolla) wrote in message news:<3cfd458b....@news.earthlink.net>...
> On Mon, 03 Jun 2002 21:00:00 GMT, Mike Caro <ca...@caro.com> wrote:
>
> >I have just received my copy of "Dave Scharf and His Wife Having Sex
> >Tapes" courtesy of GCA. I appreciate GCA for having giving me the
> >opportunity to see this private intimacy. I had never given it any
> >thought prior to the onslaught of GCA postings some time ago.
>
> I have just received my copy of "Mike Caro and His Wife Having Sex
> with a Dead Parrot Tapes" courtesy of Mike Caro. I appreciate Mike
> Caro for having giving me the opportunity to ponder this private
> intimacy. I had never given it any thought prior to the onslaught of
> "Wife Having Sex" postings today.
Spikey
was distributed without your consent. Please forgive me for accepting
and watching them, I shouldn't have done that. I will send them back
to Russ right away.
> >>First, my comments weren't meant to be unkind. I was just trying to
> >>point out something -- and not to you in particular. By using
> >>approximations of your own words, I hoped everyone would see why it
> >>might be inappropriate for you or anyone else to thank this man for
> >>sending out tapes that were essentially my own private notes, that the
> >>sender agreed not to distribute, that I believe to consist of
> >>inappropriate, speculative, and often provably wrong statements about
> >>many innocent people, and that I never distributed myself.
> >>
> >
> >Just out of curiousity, Mike, when you gave copies of your "private
> >notes" to an unscrupulous scumbag, exactly what did you think would
> >happen?
> >
> >John Harkness
>
> Hi, John --
>
> Strangely, I didn't think he would distribute them. The agreement we
> signed was that he would get one copy for his records. I thought that
> was reasonable. While I realized he could potentially break his
> agreement and distribute the tapes, I didn't think he would. Why?
>
> It was because he had originally come to me talking about making his
> own tapes (which I had urged him not to do unless he could accompany
> names with evidence). If he wanted to distribute this information on
> video, he could have gone hog wild and said whatever he wanted without
> cross-examination from me. He certainly could have staged it better
> and put a microphone near where you could hear everyone, if he wanted
> others to see and listen. And he was always capable of making and
> distributing tapes with any unscrupulous allegations he chose about
> anyone -- tapes that said exactly what HE wanted, that were much
> better quality than these, with virtually no cost or time investment.
>
> So, no, it didn't occur to me that he would go on THIS distribution
> campaign (or that he wouldn't stop it when I demanded he do so) --
> especially since that would put him in grave legal jeopardy with me,
> something he could completely avoid by making his own tapes. If the
> tapes were of a different nature, like footage of a one-of-a-kind
> event catching cheating in action, that would be understandable.
>
> I think the misunderstanding here centers around what I actually
> "gave" him. I really only gave him a copy of his own words, something
> he could easily supply on his own. So, I didn't think that agreeing in
> advance to provide him with a copy for his records was a big deal, as
> long as he agreed not to distribute it. Do you think he would have
> vanished if he didn't have the video? Or do you think he would have
> made his own, as he originally intended?
>
> Straight Flushes,
> Mike Caro
A. Prock
>the context of an analogy and therefore shouldn't be taken as
>targeting anyone. If someone had said that to me, I would have
>responded with, "Good point," or "I disagree," or something, but I
>certainly would NOT have been offended by the choice of words.
On the other hand, I'm sure you'll be the first to
admit that whether or not YOU were offended is an
issue.
I'm sure that you'd also admit that someone who
bills them self as a "Mad Genius" might very possbile
look at the world through different than the
"common man" -- who might or might not be offended
by your post.
I'll leave this by echoing what someone else quoted:
"...go sleep it off."
- Andrew