Mason Malmuth's latest smear
Badger
of incredible posts where he recklessly heaves Mike Sexton and Linda Johnson
under a cloud of suspicion regarding the Orleans casino scandal because of
their recent job changes. He does say "I believe neither of them did
anything wrong...", but this is a bit like saying: "In regards to the
Orleans scandal, I believe neither Barry Shulman nor Doyle Brunson did
anything wrong." Why are these peoples names here? What is Mason current
mudslinging agenda? Why does a man who knows so little about so many things
insist on saying so much?
His further smears that the problems at the Orleans may be the result of
Card Player's (according to him) emphasis on tournament poker. Is this man
this much of a fool? *Tournament poker* is the reason David Hrscina played
slot machines????
Next along will come David to say that Mason really meant that the sky is
blue and 3+3=6.
RMITCHCOLL
>Mason seems to sink to new lows each day. On two plus two he makes a couple
>of incredible posts where he recklessly heaves Mike Sexton and Linda Johnson
>under a cloud of suspicion regarding the Orleans casino scandal because of
>their recent job changes.
Thanks for bringing this to our attn Badger. If you are like me and find the
new 2+2 format unreadable, this smear is under the Other Topics forum. I
usually stay out of the threads where the "name" poker people go at it but this
to me goes over the edge. I do not know Mason but this allusion to wrongdoing
by Linda Johnson and Mike Sexton reeks of the actions of a self important
little weasel. If Mason has some FACTS to add, please do. If not please slink
back to the sleazy rock you crawled out from under.
Randy Collack
not some anonymous aoler
Barbara Yoon
>> Mason seems to sink to new lows each day. ...recklessly heaves
>> Mike Sexton and Linda Johnson under a cloud of suspicion
>> regarding the Orleans casino scandal because of their recent
>> What is Mason current mudslinging agenda? Why...knows
>> so little about so many things insist on saying so much?
>> His further smears that the problems at the Orleans may be
>> the result of Card Player's (according to him) emphasis on
>> tournament poker. Is this man this much of a fool?
>> *Tournament poker* is the reason David Hrscina played
>> slot machines???? Next along will come David to say that
>> Mason really meant that the sky is blue and 3+3=6.
RMITCHCOLL:
> Thanks for bringing this to our attn Badger. If you are like me
> and find the new 2+2 format unreadable... ...this to me goes
> over the edge. I do not know Mason but this allusion to
> wrongdoing by Linda Johnson and Mike Sexton reeks of the
> actions of a self important little weasel. If Mason has some
> FACTS to add, please do. If not please slink back to the
> sleazy rock you crawled out from under.
For all the other faults in RGP, at least there are alert and vigorous
posters here who keep the 'slime-to-facts-ratio' under control...
Mason Malmuth
to our Other Topics forum, at www.twoplustwo.com. The title of the thread is
Orleans Poker Room Scandal. I did not start the thread, but was responding to
other posts.
Mason Malmuth
Badger wrote:
> Mason seems to sink to new lows each day. On two plus two he makes a couple
> of incredible posts where he recklessly heaves Mike Sexton and Linda Johnson
> under a cloud of suspicion regarding the Orleans casino scandal because of
> their recent job changes. He does say "I believe neither of them did
> anything wrong...", but this is a bit like saying: "In regards to the
> Orleans scandal, I believe neither Barry Shulman nor Doyle Brunson did
> anything wrong." Why are these peoples names here? What is Mason current
> mudslinging agenda? Why does a man who knows so little about so many things
Linda Sherman
>
> For those of you who are interested in exactly what I said, I invite you to come
> to our Other Topics forum, at www.twoplustwo.com. The title of the thread is
> Orleans Poker Room Scandal. I did not start the thread, but was responding to
> other posts.
Well this is what you posted on 2+2:
> I actually think the scandal is bigger than we will ever know. I also suspect that the scandal
> has something to do with Mike Sexton becoming a consultant for the Tournament of
> Champions (leaving his current position) and Linda Johnson stepping down as publisher
> of CARD PLAYER sooner than anyone expected.
I have to agree with Badger that this post looks pretty sleazy. Your
wording suggests that you think Sextion and Johnson were somehow
involved in the scandal. And even though you were responding to a thread
someone else started, the fact is, **YOU** were the first to bring up
Sexton's and Johnson's names in the thread. The original poster merely
criticized Card Player for not mentioning the scandal when naming
Hriscina's replacement.
In a later post to the same thread you sort of backpedaled:
> While I don't believe that Mike Sexton or Linda Johnson did any
> thing wrong, I do believe that they made decisions that hurt poker
> in the long run.
It then comes out that their "decisions" had nothing to do with the
Orleans scandal at all. You have some bug up your ass about tournament
poker and have apparently decided that Sexton and Johnson are a threat
to ring-game poker. As far as I can tell, tour "reasoning" for this is
their promoting tournaments is somehow causing casinos to neglect their
cardroom operations, and it was this neglect that led Hriscina to steal.
That's an interesting view of morality and personal responsibility, to
say the least.
Lin
--
Linda K Sherman <lins...@gte.net>
Learn Welsh - http://www.dalati.com
Mason Malmuth
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But I do believe that these are very important issues
that need to be seriously addressed by the poker community. Also, just to set the record straight, I
wrote:
"As for Mike Sexton and Linda Johnson, I believe that neither of them did anything wrong, and
furthermore I believe that their intentions were good."
Again, let me extend an invitation to our Other Topics Forum at www.twoplustwo.com where this thread
appears. This is an extremely important issue that certainly has more than one side to it.
Best wishes,
Mason
Barbara Yoon
>>> For those of you who are interested in exactly what I said,
>>> The title of the thread is Orleans Poker Room Scandal.
>>> I did not start the thread, but was responding to other posts.
> where this thread appears. This is an extremely important issue...
Never missing even the sorriest excuse to call people to your
own little commercial website... Why don't you just post here
whatever it is that you want us to see?!
JohnnyD
encourage everyone else on rgp to do the same.
JohnnyD
"Barbara Yoon" <by...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:8o9diq$k30$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Gary Carson
>Linda:
>
>You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But I do believe that these are
very important issues
>that need to be seriously addressed by the poker community. Also, just to
set the record straight, I
>wrote:
These are important issues? What are important issues? Who's the new
tournament director?
If these vague issues are so important, then skip the comedy routine and
talk about those issues. You might even write about them in your PD podium
or use your influence with the PD editor to get a poker journalist assigned
to write about the Orleans thefts.
>
>"As for Mike Sexton and Linda Johnson, I believe that neither of them did
anything wrong, and
>furthermore I believe that their intentions were good."
>
>Again, let me extend an invitation to our Other Topics Forum at
www.twoplustwo.com where this thread
>appears. This is an extremely important issue that certainly has more than
one side to it.
OKay? It's important? Then talk about it someplace where you aren't the
censor -- where people can be sure they are getting those multiple sides.
I used to post at 2+2. I stopped for a while after you deleted some of my
posts that where critical of you. Then I posted again for a while when I
started selling my ebook. I sold a few copies as a result, some to some of
your regulars btw. But, 2+2 has just gotten two fragmented, too hard to
use. It's not worth the trouble to me (I seldom even read it anymore), even
if it would sell a couple of extra books for me.
btw, Mason, why haven't you bought my book yet? You can get details at
http://garycarson.home.mindspring.com
Gary Carson
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Mason
>
>Linda Sherman wrote:
>
>> Mason Malmuth wrote:
>> >
>> > For those of you who are interested in exactly what I said, I invite
you to come
>> > to our Other Topics forum, at www.twoplustwo.com. The title of the
thread is
>> > Orleans Poker Room Scandal. I did not start the thread, but was
responding to
>> > other posts.
>>
John Harkness
<masonm...@twoplustwo.com> wrote:
>Linda:
>
>You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But I do believe that these are very important issues
>that need to be seriously addressed by the poker community. Also, just to set the record straight, I
>wrote:
>
>"As for Mike Sexton and Linda Johnson, I believe that neither of them did anything wrong, and
>furthermore I believe that their intentions were good."
>
>Again, let me extend an invitation to our Other Topics Forum at www.twoplustwo.com where this thread
>appears. This is an extremely important issue that certainly has more than one side to it.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Mason
>
You said that after people called you on your original post in the
thread and started weaseling.
I quote
"I actually think the scandal is bigger than we will ever know. I also
suspect that the scandal has something to do with Mike Sexton becoming
a consultant for the Tournament of Champions (leaving his current
position) and Linda Johnson stepping down as publisher of CARD PLAYER
sooner than anyone expected."
Since the scandal had to do with the alleged theft of a large sum of
money by the tournament director, the implications of your statement
are plain -- the Sexton and Johnson had something to do with the
missing money.
Unlike you, some of us actually speak and read English as a first
language and can see the implication and the smear.
John Harkness
Barbara Yoon
>>> "I actually think the scandal is bigger than we will ever know.
>>> I also suspect that the scandal has something to do with
>>> Mike Sexton becoming a consultant for the Tournament of
>>> Champions (leaving his current position) and Linda Johnson
>>> stepping down as publisher of CARD PLAYER sooner than
>>> anyone expected."
Linda Sherman:
>> I have to agree with Badger that this post looks pretty sleazy.
>> Your wording suggests that you think Sextion and Johnson
>> were somehow involved in the scandal.
Mason Malmuth:
> Again, let me extend an invitation to our Other Topics Forum at...
> This is an extremely important issue...
Please do explain to us what you mean by your, "This"...
WHAT's "an extremely important issue?!" Just what is it
that you "suspect" is the "something" that Mike Sexton and
Linda Johnson have "to do with" the Orleans "scandal?!"
Mike Caro
I know the ENTIRE inner workings of Linda Johnson's resignation as
publisher of Card Player magazine and her acquisition of Card Player
Cruises and the World Poker Industry Conference. I have talked with
Linda as recently as this morning. And I had long discussion with the
current main owners of Card Player two weeks ago.
And I also know the ENTIRE situation regarding the ownership change at
Tournament of Champions and have had discussions with Chuck Humphrey
last week and Mike Sexton this morning. (In fact I met with Mike and
Linda together on another matter.)
I can personally assure everyone that there is no connection
whatsoever -- not even a tiny one -- between allegations of misconduct
at the Orleans and either of those events.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 20:10:28 GMT, j...@attcanada.ca (John Harkness)
wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 13:24:01 -0700, Mason Malmuth
><masonm...@twoplustwo.com> wrote:
>
>>Linda:
>>
>>You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But I do believe that these are very important issues
>>that need to be seriously addressed by the poker community. Also, just to set the record straight, I
>>wrote:
>>
>>"As for Mike Sexton and Linda Johnson, I believe that neither of them did anything wrong, and
>>furthermore I believe that their intentions were good."
>>
>>Again, let me extend an invitation to our Other Topics Forum at www.twoplustwo.com where this thread
>>appears. This is an extremely important issue that certainly has more than one side to it.
>>
>>Best wishes,
>>
>>Mason
>>
>
>
>You said that after people called you on your original post in the
>thread and started weaseling.
>
>I quote
>
>"I actually think the scandal is bigger than we will ever know. I also
>suspect that the scandal has something to do with Mike Sexton becoming
>a consultant for the Tournament of Champions (leaving his current
>position) and Linda Johnson stepping down as publisher of CARD PLAYER
>sooner than anyone expected."
>
>Since the scandal had to do with the alleged theft of a large sum of
>money by the tournament director, the implications of your statement
>are plain -- the Sexton and Johnson had something to do with the
>missing money.
>
>Unlike you, some of us actually speak and read English as a first
>language and can see the implication and the smear.
>
>John Harkness
>
>
>
>
>
>>Linda Sherman wrote:
>>
>>> Mason Malmuth wrote:
>>> >
>>> > For those of you who are interested in exactly what I said, I invite you to come
>>> > to our Other Topics forum, at www.twoplustwo.com. The title of the thread is
>>> > Orleans Poker Room Scandal. I did not start the thread, but was responding to
>>> > other posts.
>>>
>>> Well this is what you posted on 2+2:
>>>
>>> > I actually think the scandal is bigger than we will ever know. I also suspect that the scandal
>>> > has something to do with Mike Sexton becoming a consultant for the Tournament of
>>> > Champions (leaving his current position) and Linda Johnson stepping down as publisher
>>> > of CARD PLAYER sooner than anyone expected.
>>>
>>> I have to agree with Badger that this post looks pretty sleazy. Your
>>> wording suggests that you think Sextion and Johnson were somehow
Badger
> Mason Malmuth:
> > Again, let me extend an invitation to our Other Topics Forum at...
> > This is an extremely important issue...
> Please do explain to us what you mean by your, "This"...
> WHAT's "an extremely important issue?!" Just what is it
> that you "suspect" is the "something" that Mike Sexton and
> Linda Johnson have "to do with" the Orleans "scandal?!"
Sadly for Mason, this is the way he talks. He creates clouds of suspicion.
He spews innuendo and dark implications. He speaks about some mysterious
other "issue" that he apparently didn't see fit to post, instead he just
posted some broad hints of sinister goings-on.
The posts on two plus two are just his latest unsubstantiated, ignorant
smear.
Dan Mullen
on slinging mud he might sell a few more books.
And then he wouldn't need to try and attract readers to his commercial
website through bullshit and innuendo just to try and make ends meet.
"Badger" <stevebadg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8o9k23$5pd$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
lvdlrs
and Muth, close enough for mouth. Hence Mason Badmouth.
Gary (...) Philips
CodeSavvy
some good points in his response to my post on 2+2. For instance what about
collusion and partnerships in tournaments do they not exist? What about
tournament toking customs? What about satellites and taxes paid (or not paid)?
And several posters have speculated how a person could steal money from the
entry fees. Doesn't money tend to corrupt? He explicitly stated that he did
not believe that Linda or Mike did anything unethical or illegal.
Barbara Yoon
>>> "I actually think the scandal is bigger than we will ever know.
>>> I also suspect that the scandal has something to do with
>>> Mike Sexton becoming a consultant for the Tournament of
>>> Champions (leaving his current position) and Linda Johnson
>>> stepping down as publisher of CARD PLAYER sooner than
>>> anyone expected."
John Harkness:
>> Since the scandal had to do with the alleged theft of a large sum
>> of money by the tournament director, the implications of your
>> statement are plain -- the Sexton and Johnson had something
>> to do with the missing money. Unlike you, some of us actually
>> speak and read English as a first language and can see the
>> implication and the smear.
Mike Caro:
> To whom it may concern: I know the ENTIRE inner workings of
> Linda Johnson's resignation as publisher of Card Player magazine...
> And I also know the ENTIRE situation regarding the ownership
> change at Tournament of Champions... I can personally assure
> everyone that there is no connection whatsoever -- not even a tiny
> one -- between allegations of misconduct at the Orleans and either
> of those events.
OK then, Mr. Caro, if you want us to accept as 'the truth' what
you say here about "no connection whatsoever" with the money
missing from the Orleans, then please do tell us WHY so fine
a gentleman of such high standing in the poker community as
Mr. Malmuth, so admired, respected, and revered by all, would
harbor such 'dark suspicions,' and feel so strongly enough to post
those suspicions for all the world to see?! Can you PROVE that
Sexton and Johnson were NOT involved, as you claim?!
Dan Mullen
> a gentleman of such high standing in the poker community as
> Mr. Malmuth, so admired, respected, and revered by all,
Caro...I mean, Barbara...you are a hoot!
davidpoll
re-buys that were stolen, and therefore not
available for me to win the last time(s) I played and won?
"lvdlrs" <lvd...@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:39A8A280...@lvcm.com...
Badger
> I like tournaments and think they present opportunities but Mason does
bring up
> some good points in his response to my post on 2+2. For instance what
about
> collusion and partnerships in tournaments do they not exist?
Mason is famous for saying there is no collusion in ring game poker, or none
in any game he's played in. This is a rather foolish claim. Just like in
ring game poker, some cheating takes place in tournaments -- but to a far,
far greater degree than ring games (where, for instance, it is easy rather
than difficult for colluders to sit in the same game for hours on end).
> What about
> tournament toking customs?
What about them? Mike and Linda behind some sinister toking conspiracy?
> What about satellites and taxes paid (or not paid)?
What about them? More to the point, what does Mason say about any of this?
Nothing.
> He explicitly stated that he did
> not believe that Linda or Mike did anything unethical or illegal.
Yeah, I do not believe that Mason still beats his dog. Great statement.
This is all the usual Mason/David dog and pony show. Make idiotic
statements, then cover-up by saying the sky is blue.
The only issue here is Mason's irresponsible contempt for anything that is
not in his own selfish, joyless, banal self-interest.
Badger
> Mason is famous for saying there is no collusion in ring game poker, or
none
> in any game he's played in. This is a rather foolish claim. Just like in
> ring game poker, some cheating takes place in tournaments -- but to a far,
> far greater degree than ring games (where, for instance, it is easy rather
> than difficult for colluders to sit in the same game for hours on end).
Whoops... obviously this should read that more cheating takes place in ring
games than tournaments.
timmer
Barbara Yoon wrote:
> Mike Caro:
> > To whom it may concern: I know the ENTIRE inner workings of
> > Linda Johnson's resignation as publisher of Card Player magazine...
> > And I also know the ENTIRE situation regarding the ownership
> > change at Tournament of Champions... I can personally assure
> > everyone that there is no connection whatsoever -- not even a tiny
> > one -- between allegations of misconduct at the Orleans and either
> > of those events.
>
> OK then, Mr. Caro, >< Can you PROVE that
> Sexton and Johnson were NOT involved, as you claim?!
Barb,
Please repeat after me : This is not communist China or Russia.
Here in America we are all innocent until *proven* guilty.
The burden of proof lies on the prosecution.
timmer
Flaz 241
Orleans
Barbara Yoon
from the Orleans cardroom...two respected RGP posters,
Linda Sherman and John Harkness, quote Mason Malmuth
on "the scandal":
>>> "I actually think the scandal is bigger than we will ever know.
>>> I also suspect that the scandal has something to do with
>>> Mike Sexton becoming a consultant for the Tournament of
>>> Champions (leaving his current position) and Linda Johnson
>>> stepping down as publisher of CARD PLAYER sooner than
>>> anyone expected."
CodeSavvy:
> I like tournaments and think they present opportunities but Mason
> does bring up some good points in his response to my post on 2+2.
> For instance what about collusion and partnerships in tournaments
> do they not exist? What about tournament toking customs? What
> about satellites and taxes paid (or not paid)? And several posters
> have speculated how a person could steal money from the entry fees.
> Doesn't money tend to corrupt? He explicitly stated that he did
> not believe that Linda or Mike did anything unethical or illegal.
We are discussing Mason Malmuth's expressed 'suspicions' -- which
some posters have characterized with words like "smear," "mudslinging,"
"sleazy," "weasel," "idiotic," "bullshit," "innuendo," "unsubstantiated,"
"ignorant," "banal self-interest" -- about Mike Sexton and Linda Johnson
'having something to do with the missing-money scandal'... I see nothing
at all in Malmuth's quote about your "collusion and partnerships," nor
"toking customs," nor "taxes" -- where do you come up with such things,
and just what relevance do they have to Mike Sexton, Linda Johnson,
and the missing money?!
DrToast
scandal.
DrToast
On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 00:15:13 -0400, "Barbara Yoon" <by...@erols.com>
wrote:
Gary Carson
>
>
>Barbara Yoon wrote:
>
>> Mike Caro:
>> > To whom it may concern: I know the ENTIRE inner workings of
>> > Linda Johnson's resignation as publisher of Card Player magazine...
>> > And I also know the ENTIRE situation regarding the ownership
>> > change at Tournament of Champions... I can personally assure
>> > everyone that there is no connection whatsoever -- not even a tiny
>> > one -- between allegations of misconduct at the Orleans and either
>> > of those events.
>>
>> Sexton and Johnson were NOT involved, as you claim?!
>
> Please repeat after me : This is not communist China or Russia.
>Here in America we are all innocent until *proven* guilty.
>The burden of proof lies on the prosecution.
That's just a myth that we indoctrinate 6th graders with. In general it's
not true, there are many situations where the law presumes guilt.
And example is hot checks. In most states (I think all), there is a law
that says you can't knowingly write a check without sufficient funds in the
bank to cover the check. A key word that could make it difficult for the
prosecution to prove is knowingly. We just ignore that little detail by
creating presumptive evidence. They say that if you didn't make good on the
check within 10 days after it bounced then we presume you knew the check was
no good when you wrote it.
Another situation where you're guilty until proven innocent is drug dealing.
If you are found in possession of some trigger amount, it's presumed you had
an intent to resell, the prosecution doesn't have to prove you've ever sold
any. In fact, even if you could prove you've never sold any (impossible) it
wouldn't do any good. You'd have to prove you didn't intend to sell any in
the future.
One where the presumption isn't codified is in public intoxication laws.
There you're always guilty based on testimony of a cop, you have to prove
you innocence. The prosecution doesn't have to give any evidence to support
the cops testimony.
You really aren't innocent until proven guilty. Maybe OJ was, but not the
rest of us.
Gary Carson
>
>timmer
>
Barbara Yoon
> I personally believe that Mike Caro had nothing to do
> with the scandal.
Yeah...so you naively buy Caro's 'Sgt. Schultz' act,
"I know NOTHINK!" Well, I don't buy it at all...
I think Caro is in it up to his bushy eyebrows -- I mean,
how do you explain him recently sporting those flashy
new designer alligator skin sandals, and that spiffy new
paint job on his Yugo?! And Malmuth KNOWS it too,
but he's covering it up because of his great personal
friendship with Caro. This all stinks to high heaven!
CodeSavvy
I'm referring to.
Re: Orleans Poker Room Scandal
Mason Malmuth -- Saturday, 26 August 2000, at 3:36 p.m.
I assume you must know how to get to the site and know where it occurs because I
couldn't imagine someone condemning Mason without reading what he wrote in the
context of the thread. So since you have read part of the thread it is the last
post by Mason at the bottom.
John Harkness
<CodeSavv...@newsguy.com> wrote:
Look at Mason's FIRST post in the thread. He came to that final post
after he got called on his first post, the one where he says he thinks
that Sexton's departure from the TOC and Johnson's departure from Card
Player had something to do with the scandal.
Saying after a day or so that he doesn't REALLY mean that....
If I were Mike or Linda, my lawyer would be looking at that first post
very carefully.
John Harkness
Barbara Yoon
>>>>> I actually think the scandal is bigger than we will ever know.
>>>>> I also suspect that the scandal has something to do with
>>>>> Mike Sexton becoming a consultant for the Tournament of
>>>>> Champions (leaving his current position) and Linda Johnson
>>>>> stepping down as publisher of CARD PLAYER sooner than
>>>>> anyone expected."
CodeSavvy:
>>> Mason does bring up some good points... ...collusion and
>>> partnerships...? toking customs? ...taxes paid (or not paid)?
>> We are discussing Mason Malmuth's expressed 'suspicions'...
>> about Mike Sexton and Linda Johnson 'having something to do
>> with the missing-money scandal'... ...your "collusion and
>> partnerships"..."toking customs"..."taxes" -- where do you
>> come up with such things, and just what relevance do they have
>> to Mike Sexton, Linda Johnson, and the missing money?!
CodeSavvy:
> Mason made several posts and many statements in the 2+2 thread.
> Here is the one I'm referring to. Re: Orleans Poker Room Scandal
> Mason Malmuth -- Saturday, 26 August 2000, at 3:36 p.m. I assume
> you must know how to get to the site and know where it occurs
> because I couldn't imagine someone condemning Mason without
> reading what he wrote in the context of the thread. So since you
> have read part of the thread it is the last post by Mason at the bottom.
All I have read by Malmuth is here in RGP, including his quote
at the top here, expressing his 'suspicions' about Mike Sexton
and Linda Johnson 'having something to do with the Orleans
missing-money scandal.' And so are you telling me that I ought
to go to Malmuth's own little commercial website to read other
random things that he has posted there about "collusion and
partnerships," "toking customs," and "taxes?!" WHY??!!
DrToast
I do.
DrToast
On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 14:58:31 -0400, "Barbara Yoon" <by...@erols.com>
wrote:
>DrToast:
>> I personally believe that Mike Caro had nothing to do
>> with the scandal.
>
>
>
Mason Malmuth
discussions on how to play poker, how to improve your technique, and much of
the other goings on in the poker world, and other topics. For those of you
interested the address of our site is www.twoplustwo.com. Many well known
poker personalities and top players post there.
Dan Mullen
www.RGPisnotanadvertisementforsklanskyandmalmuthswebsite.com
"Mason Malmuth" <masonm...@twoplustwo.com> wrote in message
news:39A997DF...@twoplustwo.com...
DrToast
DrToast
On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 22:48:42 GMT, "Dan Mullen" <dwmu...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Badger
> Look at Mason's FIRST post in the thread. He came to that final post
> after he got called on his first post, the one where he says he thinks
> that Sexton's departure from the TOC and Johnson's departure from Card
> Player had something to do with the scandal.
>
> Saying after a day or so that he doesn't REALLY mean that....
Typical Malmuth/Sklansky. Make an outrageous and amazingly ignorant post,
then instead of correcting themselves or (heaven forbid) apologizing, they
seek go to confuse the issue by posting banalities as to what they "meant,"
or "issues" they are raising. It's just pretty sad actually.
Notice that Mason still hasn't apologized for his first Johnson/Sexton post.
Still. He believes what he wrote. What a sad little man.
Mason Malmuth
www.twoplustwo.com this morning.
"If in any way some of you mistook my words to mean that Linda and/or Mike had
something to do with money being stolen or other inappropriate activities then I do
apologize for poorly written language. However, I do think that they might be
innocent victims of the problems that occurred."
Again I invite any of you who are interested to see the thread on our Other Topics
Forum where several of my posts on this subject are located.
Best wishes,
Mason Malmuth
Dsklansky wrote:
> It is a reasonable assumption that when people leave a situation at the same
> time there it a scandal, it is not a coincidence. However that is a much
> different than saying that the people who left were responsible. Mason's first
> post implied suspicions of the former, not the latter. He said the scandal
> caused their leaving, not the other way around. He could have made that clearer
> though. And some might say he didn't have to write it at all if he wasn't sure
> there was a connection.
>
> As to why Barbara Yoon should visit our website, the reason is simple: Those
> who do will play better poker and have better financial results over the long
> run, pokerwise, than before they visited. This is true for Barbara Yoon, Johnny
> Chan, and absolutely everyone else in between. And it is more true for our
> site than any other. Period.
Badger
> "If in any way some of you mistook my words to mean that Linda and/or Mike
had
> something to do with money being stolen or other inappropriate activities
then I do
> apologize for poorly written language. However, I do think that they might
be
> innocent victims of the problems that occurred."
Can somebody rational tell me what that last sentence means? So Mason is
saying that Mike and Linda changed jobs as a result of the Orleans scandal?
How? Why? What on earth is he talking about?
Or maybe he meant that they are only innocent victims because Mason Malmuth
chose to again act like an irresponsible, uninformed mudslinger.
Badger
> It is a reasonable assumption that when people leave a situation at the
same
> time there it a scandal, it is not a coincidence.
No, it is not reasonable. It's not even remotely rational. A cardroom
manager takes money to replace money he has gambled while playing slots, so
an unrelated magazine publisher resigns her job??? This is irrational
foolishness.
I'll bet some poker dealer in Las Vegas quit his job the same day as the
Orleans scandal hit... Mason must think this is not a coincidence. Maybe he
is this much a dummy, but that's doubtful. Since he can't possibly
logically think this, his intentions must be malicious.
lvdlrs
pointed out that you haven't any irrefutable proof to back
up your claim?
Gary (...) Philips
Dsklansky wrote:
> >>As to why Barbara Yoon should visit our website, the reason is simple: Those
> >>who do will play better poker and have better financial results over the
> >long
> >>run, pokerwise, than before they visited.
> >
> >David,
> >
> >Could you please forward me the intensive studies you must have done
> >in order to be able to make a claim such as this. I'd be very
> >interested in reviewing them. If you post it on 2+2, I promise I'll
> >visit.
> >
> >DrToast
> >
> I would rather you play as badly as I suspect you do.
Gary Carson
>It is a reasonable assumption that when people leave a situation at the
same
>time there it a scandal, it is not a coincidence.
No, it's not a reasnalble assumption at all. That's the kind of fuzzy
thinking that leads some to believe in ESP.
>However that is a much
>different than saying that the people who left were responsible. Mason's
first
>post implied suspicions of the former, not the latter. He said the scandal
>caused their leaving, not the other way around.
That might be what he meant. But, it's not what he said.
> He could have made that clearer
>though. And some might say he didn't have to write it at all if he wasn't
sure
>there was a connection.
Or he might just give some reason why anyone who'd been taking their
medication might think there was a connection.
>As to why Barbara Yoon should visit our website, the reason is simple:
Those
>who do will play better poker and have better financial results over the
long
>run, pokerwise, than before they visited.
I guess fuzzy thinking comes with getting old, David. You're confusing
correlation with causation.
Or maybe you just think the visitors to 2+2 are too stupid to understand the
distinction.
> This is true for Barbara Yoon, Johnny
>Chan, and absolutely everyone else in between. And it is more true for our
>site than any other. Period.
This is just wishful thinking on your part. Like Mason's parinoid
delusions, it has no basis in reality.
Gary Carson
>
>
Badger
> >No, it is not reasonable. It's not even remotely rational. A cardroom
> >manager takes money to replace money he has gambled while playing slots,
so
> >an unrelated magazine publisher resigns her job??? This is irrational
> >foolishness.
> In the case of Mike Sexton it certainly is reasonable that he would be
made a
> scapegoat.
No. You need to look up the difference between "reasonable" and
"plausible." Sure, since the TOC just occured at the Orleans, it is
plausible that Mike could have somehow been involved in something there.
Okay, now that we know it is humanly possible... perhaps your partner could
provide one microscopic bit of evidence, a rumor even, that would lead one
to come to the conclusion that these wholly different events were somehow
connected. Of course he can't. Mudslingers don't prove anything, they just
insinuate, and blow smoke and flat-out lie.
Plausible is not reasonable. It's plausible that you actually think your
association with Mason doesn't discredit everything you have to say about
poker, but it's not reasonable. The reasonable conclusion would be that you
also have no scruples.
>In the case of Linda Johnson, Mason tells me that there was a
> connection involving TOC.
Ohmygod, stop the presses. A "connection." Hello? Card Player ran ads for
the TOC. Obviously this means Linda was feeding Hrscina $5 slot tokens on
the side. What on earth are you talking about? A "connection." More
nauseating innuendo. Do you two have any scruples at all!?
>I do agree however that a cursory reading of his
> first post could have left the wrong impression. My personal belief is
that if
> this guy stole, it was because it was driving him crazy to see you staked
in
> every tournament while he had to work his ass off.
See this, a perfectly good joke wasted. Why not stick to things you are
good at instead of hanging onto Mason's sleaze wagon? A "connection"?
Sounds like some dealer hanging around the schoolyard.
Sklansky logic: there is a connection between Linda and Card Player...
there is a connection between Card Player taking ads from the TOC... there
is a connection between the TOC and the Orleans... there is a connection
between the Orleans and Hrscina.... so therefore.... David defends his
mudslinging partner for endlessly destructive and malicious attacks on
anyone and anything that doesn't put money into his own pocket, regardless
of whether he has one microbe of evidence to support his statements.
Here you go David, try it, you might like not being covered in mud:
"Mason was wrong to post what he did about Mike and Linda."
Try and do the right thing for once.
Gary Carson
>On 28 Aug 2000 01:03:54 GMT, dskl...@aol.com (Dsklansky) wrote:
>
>>As to why Barbara Yoon should visit our website, the reason is simple:
Those
>>who do will play better poker and have better financial results over the
long
>>run, pokerwise, than before they visited.
>
>
>Could you please forward me the intensive studies you must have done
>in order to be able to make a claim such as this. I'd be very
>interested in reviewing them. If you post it on 2+2, I promise I'll
>visit.
I'll post it here. Save you the trip.
David is talking about a correlation. He wants you to think there is a
causation. There is no causation.
The correlation is because of the confounding variable "interest in the
game" or "devoting resources to studying the game". People who meansure
high on those varaibles (or similar measures) will be both more likely to do
well at the game and also more likely to visit 2+2. Correlation. Not
causation.
You can make the same statement about people who have coffee once a week
with a buddy and they talk about last weeks poker game. Or people who read
Ken Warrens book. Or people who visit my website.
But, the causel relationship is between the interest in the game and
improvement -- not some particualr act. You improve because you're
thinking about the game -- not because of some dribble that David posts to
2+2
Gary Carson
>
>DrToast
>
Bill T
"CardPlayerCruise" <cardplay...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000828003250...@ng-fh1.aol.com...
>
> I sent Mason a private email asking for an apology on both RGP and two
plus two
> in order to save me the time consulting with my attorney regarding the
libel
> laws. I will seek legal advice if he does not come up with an acceptable
> apology. I realize that after his original post, he tried to backpedal,
but the
> original post was totally unfounded, malicious, and without merit. He has
> stepped over the line with his ridiculous allegations. Thank you all for
your
> support on this matter.
> Linda Johnson
Unfortunately, I doubt if MM's posts constitute libel. It would be
difficult
to prove his nebulous statements 1) factually false, and 2) damaging to
you in a material sense. The several real lawyers on this ng will no doubt
offer their opinions.
Sleazy, unethical does not equal libel.
Bill T
Badger
> >No. You need to look up the difference between "reasonable" and
> >"plausible." Sure, since the TOC just occured at the Orleans, it is
> >plausible that Mike could have somehow been involved in something there.
>
plausible
> that Mike was involved. PLEASE READ THAT AGAIN. What is reasonable is that
> Mike's diminished role was foisted upon him, probably unfairly, because of
what
> happened. Again I will agree that Mason's original post did not take great
> enough pains to point out the difference to the casual reader.
Did you guys take some class in how to make sleazy, unfounded accusations.
It's hard to even keep up... so now David says that it is reasonable to
think that Mike's job change was "foisted upon him, probably unfairly". So
now you to protect yourself and mason from your prior mudslinging, you
change your aim throw your garbage at the other (non-Mike) partners in the
TOC?!
How low can you go?
Terrence Chan
<masonm...@twoplustwo.com> wrote:
>The reason you go to our site is simple. It contains many excellent
>discussions on how to play poker, how to improve your technique, and much of
>the other goings on in the poker world, and other topics. For those of you
>interested the address of our site is www.twoplustwo.com. Many well known
>poker personalities and top players post there.
I swear he's doing this just to piss off those people who accuse him
(accurately) of spamming. I gather the feeling he's spamming not so
much to gain visitors but just to get a rise out of RGP. In this
respect, it's less spamming than it is trolling.
--
Terrence Chan
http://www.sfu.ca/~tchand
"It profiteth the wise, to be deemed a fool."
-Oceanus, Aeschylus' _Prometheus Bound_
Dsklansky
different than saying that the people who left were responsible. Mason's first
post implied suspicions of the former, not the latter. He said the scandal
though. And some might say he didn't have to write it at all if he wasn't sure
there was a connection.
As to why Barbara Yoon should visit our website, the reason is simple: Those
who do will play better poker and have better financial results over the long
run, pokerwise, than before they visited. This is true for Barbara Yoon, Johnny
Dan Mullen
Of course, one could claim to be Johnny Chan and there would be no way to
refute it.
"Dsklansky" <dskl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000827210354...@ng-mg1.aol.com...
DrToast
it's hard sometimes.
DrToast
DrToast
>As to why Barbara Yoon should visit our website, the reason is simple: Those
>who do will play better poker and have better financial results over the long
>run, pokerwise, than before they visited.
David,
Could you please forward me the intensive studies you must have done
in order to be able to make a claim such as this. I'd be very
interested in reviewing them. If you post it on 2+2, I promise I'll
visit.
DrToast
Dsklansky
>>who do will play better poker and have better financial results over the
>long
>>run, pokerwise, than before they visited.
>
>David,
>
>Could you please forward me the intensive studies you must have done
>in order to be able to make a claim such as this. I'd be very
>interested in reviewing them. If you post it on 2+2, I promise I'll
>visit.
>
>DrToast
>
Dsklansky
>No, it is not reasonable. It's not even remotely rational. A cardroom
>manager takes money to replace money he has gambled while playing slots, so
>an unrelated magazine publisher resigns her job??? This is irrational
>foolishness.
In the case of Mike Sexton it certainly is reasonable that he would be made a
scapegoat. In the case of Linda Johnson, Mason tells me that there was a
connection involving TOC. I do agree however that a cursory reading of his
Diane from Green Bay
You are out of line here on your comments to Badger and blind defending
of Mason.
It is very tiring. Mason threw out some sensationalist comments (as I
already replied to on 2+2.
Give it a rest, he was wrong. Admit it for once. YOu two are not
infallible.
Diane
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Sgt. Rock
--
Sergeant Rock
aka WoodRack-777
Sgt. Rock
CardPlayerCruise
I sent Mason a private email asking for an apology on both RGP and two plus two
in order to save me the time consulting with my attorney regarding the libel
laws. I will seek legal advice if he does not come up with an acceptable
apology. I realize that after his original post, he tried to backpedal, but the
original post was totally unfounded, malicious, and without merit. He has
stepped over the line with his ridiculous allegations. Thank you all for your
support on this matter.
Linda Johnson
Barbara Yoon
> I sent Mason a private email asking for an apology on both RGP
> and two plus two in order to save me the time consulting with
> my attorney regarding the libel laws. I will seek legal advice if he
> does not come up with an acceptable apology. I realize that after
> but the original post was totally unfounded, malicious, and without
> merit. He has stepped over the line with his ridiculous allegations.
> Thank you all for your support on this matter.
Don't worry any at all about it, Linda... You surely know that in the
poker world, being smeared by S&M is actually a 'plus' for you...
Terrence Chan
wrote:
>I've seen Terrance Chan post at 2+2, but I have yet to see Johnny Chan.
It's my nom-de-plume. I lack creativity.
Sincerely,
Two-time world champion Johnny Chan from California; not Terrence
Chan, poor university student from British Columbia
Barbara Yoon
>>>> As to why Barbara Yoon should visit our website, the
DrToast
>>> Could you please forward me the intensive studies you must
>>> have done in order to be able to make a claim such as this.
Dsklansky:
>> I would rather you play as badly as I suspect you do.
Gary Philips:
> So this is how you respond to someone who very cleverly pointed
> out that you haven't any irrefutable proof to back up your claim?
Actually that was really exceptionally clever and original by Sklansky's
normal standards -- he usually just makes his pathetic challenges to
high school SAT tests...
Dsklansky
>
>David is talking about a correlation. He wants you to think there is a
>causation. There is no causation.
>
>The correlation is because of the confounding variable "interest in the
>game" or "devoting resources to studying the game". People who meansure
>high on those varaibles (or similar measures) will be both more likely to do
>well at the game and also more likely to visit 2+2. Correlation. Not
>causation.
>
>You can make the same statement about people who have coffee once a week
>with a buddy and they talk about last weeks poker game. Or people who read
>Ken Warrens book. Or people who visit my website.
>
>But, the causel relationship is between the interest in the game and
>improvement -- not some particualr act. You improve because you're
>thinking about the game -- not because of some dribble that David posts to
>2+2
>
>Gary Carson
>
>
that someone visits our website shows they are thinking about the game, that
was not what I was talking about. I was referring to the fact that there is
stuff there that is not generally known and will sometimes add to your profits
(even Johnny Chan's). That statement could even be made about rgp but to a far
lesser extent. Obviously I am saying thes things without irrefutable proof but
few serious poker players would disagree. Gary Carson is not a serious or very
good poker player.
Dsklansky
Gary Carson
>>I'll post it here. Save you the trip.
>>
>>David is talking about a correlation. He wants you to think there is a
>>causation. There is no causation.
>>
>>
fact
>that someone visits our website shows they are thinking about the game,
that
>was not what I was talking about. I was referring to the fact that there is
>stuff there that is not generally known and will sometimes add to your
profits
I could find something written on a cocktail napkin in the parking lot of
Hollywood Park that Caro let fall out of his pocket that is not generally
known and will sometimes add to your profits.
That does not mean that hanging out in the parking lot of Hollywood Park
will imporve your game.
You're just way out of line in your assertions David.
>(even Johnny Chan's). That statement could even be made about rgp but to a
far
>lesser extent. Obviously I am saying thes things without irrefutable proof
but
>few serious poker players would disagree. Gary Carson is not a serious or
very
>good poker player.
Whether I'm a good poker player or not has nothing to do with whether or not
your assertions are pure crap or not. You keep saying outragoues, stupid
things, then try to change the subject by saying some equally stupid thing.
Pathetic.
Gary Carson
RazzO
DrToast
you. But I understand that you needed a diversion from the fact that
you're making bold and sweeping statements without any proof
whatsoever.
DrToast
Dsklansky
>Hollywood Park that Caro let fall out of his pocket that is not generally
>known and will sometimes add to your profits.
>
>That does not mean that hanging out in the parking lot of Hollywood Park
>will imporve your game.
>
you would improve your game by hanging out in the parking lot.
>Whether I'm a good poker player or not has nothing to do with whether or not
>your assertions are pure crap or not.
True.But they have a lot to do with whether others should believe you, rather
than me, when I say you are wrong about my assertions. (Including how to play
in loose games.)
Gary Carson
>>I could find something written on a cocktail napkin in the parking lot of
>>Hollywood Park that Caro let fall out of his pocket that is not generally
>>known and will sometimes add to your profits.
>>
>>That does not mean that hanging out in the parking lot of Hollywood Park
>>will imporve your game.
>>
twoplustwo,
>
>
>>Whether I'm a good poker player or not has nothing to do with whether or
not
>>your assertions are pure crap or not.
>
rather
>than me, when I say you are wrong about my assertions. (Including how to
play
>in loose games.)
No, it doesn't David. It has nothing to do with anything. I could be the
worst player that ever lived and you'd still be full of shit and there would
be no reason for anyone to think otherwise.
There is no reason for anyone to believe me or you either one. Unlike you,
I think people do a pretty good job of just forming their own judgements.
That's particularly true when it's a judgment about your rationality and
motives. You're the one who said himself that you don't worry about whether
or not you or your endorsement are considered reliable or not. You said
that after you endorsed that crap software Poker Night with David Sklansky
or whateever it was called..
It's a nice try though David.
Gary Carson
>
>
Dsklansky
>From: "Gary Carson" garyc...@mindspring.com
>Date: 8/28/00 9:52 AM !!!First Boot!!!
>Message-id: <8odd20$r9h$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>
decide whether I may be lying, and when you do, they have to decide whether you
know what you are talking about. Agreed But what about if we are betting on an
assertion?
In any case the fact remains that those who don't read two plus two cost
themselves lots of money. Those who disagree are idiots (but I may be lying).
Gary Carson
> That is a fancy way of saying that when I make assertions people have
to
>decide whether I may be lying, and when you do, they have to decide whether
you
>know what you are talking about. Agreed
No David, it's not what I said. But, it's not important.
>But what about if we are betting on an
>assertion?
But we aren't.
>
>In any case the fact remains that those who don't read two plus two cost
>themselves lots of money. Those who disagree are idiots (but I may be
lying).
And, there is the most likely. Which is, on this topic you just don't know
what you're talking about.
But, let's address something that does matter. My works on 2+2.
When y'all took off the option to delete my own posts I was assured that
Chuck and/or Mason would delete any posts on request. So, I'm requesting.
I'd like all my work removed from 2+2. Mason has often said he thinks no
one should read anything I write (I don't know why he and you bother to read
it). So, let's just get it off your site.
Thank you,
Gary Carson
>
>
Dsklansky
>one should read anything I write (I don't know why he and you bother to read
>it). So, let's just get it off your site.
>
>Thank you,
>
>Gary Carson
>>
fact is that when you write about poker strategy and tactics you are incorrect
often enough (at least 20% of the time including your loose game concepts) that
not following your ideas in total would probably increase their hourly rate.
Joel Stankowicsz
madness. If you were in a poker room, speaking and
gossiping among each other, (rather than "talking to
a computer screen), I'm sure you would resolve your
differences short of threatening legal action. Are you
people going to start boycotting games, when you
see someone at a table, with whom you have
argued in cyberspace?
"CardPlayerCruise" <cardplay...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000828003250...@ng-fh1.aol.com...
Gary Carson
This is really funny.
I'm doing a series of articles for www.themestream.com where I'm just taking
some old email or rgp post where I told some kind of homily and making a
short article out of it. 3-4 days ago I pulled out a couple of old emails
about peoples motivations for playing poker and just finished the story last
night.
It's about what you just said. The title of the piece is Nobody Plays for
the Money.
You seem to completely miss that. You don't play for the money, David. You
never have. You play for the status. You didn't get the status you thought
you deserved in school, so you quit. You didn't get the status you thought
you deserved working as an actuary, so you quit. You came to Las Vegas and
got the status you were looking for and so you were happy. Now, living off
the status you acquired 20 years ago, you're frantically trying to regain
your status by just making absurd claims.
The article is at www.themestream.com/articles/155764.html
Go read it. I'll make a dime if you do. And, you might learn something.
Gary Carson
Edward Hutchison
many umbrellas on days when it rained and "logically" concluded that the
umbrellas must be causing the rain.
I think we should petition Congress to stamp on all of our coins the simple
statement, " Because a correlation exists, it does not follow that a causal
relationship exists."
For many years the tobacco companies argued (quite correctly) that a
correlation between smoking and lung cancer was not proof that smoking caused
the cancer. (Maybe, cancer causes people to smoke. Perhaps, smoking and
cancer both respond to some third factor producing what is known as an
"illusory correlation.") It was not until carefully designed studies of
causality were conducted that we were able to conclude that, in fact, smoking
does greatly increase the risk of contracting lung cancer.
I remain convinced that a better understanding of logic and probability theory
would benefit most poker players. And this thread also illustrates how this
greater understanding would aid in evaluating many of the issues debated in
this forum.
To return to the rain/umbrella analogy: I feel confident that if you dance
around a totem pole that it will rain. I don't know that it will rain today or
any time soon. But that it will rain is certain.
On the other hand, as I have never danced but have often gotten wet, I have an
understanding that the rain must fall on all of us--those who dance and those
who don't. Given this understanding why would I waste my time gyrating around
a tree stump?
If you think this logical fallacy is too obvious to be exhibited by any
"civilized" person then you should be more observant of your neighbor's
behavior--and possibly your own. For example, I have known several people who
quite seriously asserted to me that biting their finger nails made them
relaxed. All they knew was that they were tense, they then bit their nails,
and lo they became relaxed.
But the big question is what becomes of the rest of us. Presumably we are all
tense at one time or another. What happens to those of us who choose not to
mutilate our fingers? Are we condemned to a lifetime of anxiety and stress? I
suspect that, like the rain that occurs whether or not we dance, relaxation
comes to those who bite their nails and to those who forget to.
Although I have used nail biting as an example, you could easily substitute any
number of other silly and meaningless rituals. For instance, I regularly
encounter very tense people who, paradoxically, tell me that they smoke to be
relaxed. I have wanted to shout at some of them that "IT HASN'T WORKED," and
that they should give up on a failed remedy. I met a woman the other day who
literally could not sit still, yet she has been smoking 30 years in order that
she might be "relaxed." Do you suppose it takes 31 years?
One of the most depressing things I have read lately was a Gallup poll that
showed that tens of millions of Americans believed in astrology. Even worse,
the percentage of believers was greater among college graduates than high
school graduates.
As someone who spent many years in an obfuscatorium--otherwise known as a
university--as both a student and teacher ( I almost slipped and wrote "as an
inmate and a keeper"), I should not be surprised at the depths to which we have
devolved. Still it is depressing.
The next time you see a smoker, a nail biter, or someone who always raises with
their "lucky" cards (7-2 offsuit?), you will know that, unfortunately,
superstitious, illlogical behavior, is alive and well.
C'est la vie.
Edward Hutchison
Jackson, MS
If Squire Skimp, Kosciusko Pete, or J-D, ring a bell, please see
my Home Page at: http://ehutchison.homestead.com/HP.html
Jonathan Kaplan
ehutc...@aol.com (Edward Hutchison) wrote:
> ....The next time you see a smoker, a nail biter, or someone who
always raises with
> their "lucky" cards (7-2 offsuit?), you will know that, unfortunately,
> superstitious, illlogical behavior, is alive and well.
>
dont you mean "fortunately"?
if everyone did everything logically and/or correctly, all the time,
how boring would life (and poker) be? a world of spock-alikes makes me
shudder.
thank heaven for the less intelligent.
praise the lord for the superstitious.
etc.
smile
Jonathan
--
no matter where you go, there you are...
Jeff Wilder
would be
> difficult to prove his nebulous statements 1) factually false,
and
> 2) damaging to you in a material sense.
If Ms. Johnson is a private figure, the person publishing the
statement has to prove truth. (As opposed to the libelled
proving falsity.) Damages in libel (and slander per se -- I'm
not sure how ephemeral a 2+2 post would be considered) are
presumed.
None of this is offered, BTW, as any statement on the merits of
Ms. Johnson's case, but is rather a simple recitation of common
defamation law.
--
Jeff Wilder wil...@REMOVETHISlogrus.com San Francisco, CA
* Delete the REMOVETHIS in the email address to reply. *
J.D. received in May '99, University of Kentucky College of Law
"I'm tellin' you guys: suin' people kicks ass." -- Eric Cartman
mredge
Jeff Wilder
> Obviously I am saying thes things without irrefutable proof but
> few serious poker players would disagree. Gary Carson is not a
serious or very
> good poker player.
And you actually write a column called "Fighting Fuzzy Thinking"?
The dumbest of my first year colleagues in law school look like
logical paragons compared to you.
First, of course you're saying these things without "irrefutable
proof." You're saying them without the slightest logical support
whatsoever. They are, in fact, bald assertions of faith,
presented as fact.
Second ... well.
"Anybody who doesn't think visiting 2+2 makes someone a better
poker player is obvious not a serious poker player. Gary Carson
disagrees with me. Therefore, Gary Carson is not a serious poker
player."
That would be bad -- and idiotic enough -- but then you go
further: "And he's not a /good/ poker player, either. Nyah,
nyah!" You set up a ridiculous syllogism to attack Gary (like
anybody /needs/ a ridiculous syllogism to attack Gary; sheesh),
and then you don't even fucking stick to your own puerile logical
construction.
Do you have any idea how utterly foolish you constantly make
yourself look, Mr. Sklansky? I doubt you'll take my advice, but
both you and Mr. Malmuth would benefit by hiring someone to
screen every word you write before you offer it to your adoring
public.
Dsklansky
>the Money.
>
>You seem to completely miss that. You don't play for the money, David. You
>never have. You play for the status. You didn't get the status you thought
>you deserved in school, so you quit. You didn't get the status you thought
>you deserved working as an actuary, so you quit. You came to Las Vegas and
>got the status you were looking for and so you were happy. Now, living off
>the status you acquired 20 years ago, you're frantically trying to regain
>your status by just making absurd claims.
>
>The article is at www.themestream.com/articles/155764.html
>
>Go read it. I'll make a dime if you do. And, you might learn something.
>
>Gary Carson
>
writing about poker strategy is in error. Nice excuse. Of course few play poker
strictly for the money. And few people play golf strictly to win bets or to get
as good as they can be. But that doesn't change the fact that when they read a
golf book purporting to tell them how to lower their score, they don't want it
written by a guy who shoots 82 and says stuff that will actually hurt their
game.
Dsklansky
>proof." You're saying them without the slightest logical support
>whatsoever. They are, in fact, bald assertions of faith,
>presented as fact
They are not bald assertions. They are based on deductions relating to what he
has written about strategy, comminications with others who have played with
him, and the stakes he admits he plays. If I said "very probably" I would be
more rigorous I suppose.
Dsklansky
>if everyone did everything logically and/or correctly, all the time,
>how boring would life (and poker) be? a world of spock-alikes makes me
>shudder.
>
>thank heaven for the less intelligent.
>praise the lord for the superstitious.
>etc.
>smile
>Jonathan
>
think you realized it.
The first implication is that it is boring to be logical. I could elaborate
on this in some detail but it would be perhaps simpler to invoke the names of
Steve Allen and Richarsd Feynman to disprove that point.
The second implication is that you would have people be inferior to you
merely for your own amusement. Thank God for the superstitous? Are not there
lives often diminished by their superstition? What about the children of
parents who won't let them have needed transfusions. Would you want your own
children to believe in astrology merely to keep others from being bored?
Jonathan Kaplan
dskl...@aol.com (Dsklansky) wrote:
> >dont you mean "fortunately"?
> >if everyone did everything logically and/or correctly, all the time,
> >how boring would life (and poker) be? a world of spock-alikes makes
me
> >shudder.
> >
> >thank heaven for the less intelligent.
> >praise the lord for the superstitious.
> >etc.
> >smile
> >Jonathan
> >
> There are two very nasty implications to the above post, though I
don't
> think you realized it.
dont be so sure, although the word "nasty" is subjective, but okay.
> The first implication is that it is boring to be logical. I could
elaborate
> on this in some detail but it would be perhaps simpler to invoke the
names of
> Steve Allen and Richarsd Feynman to disprove that point.
you cant use exceptions to prove a point. at least, not well.
my opinion in this is that people that stress logic strongly tend to be
boring people. perhaps very subjective on my part, but that is the way
my experiences have borne out.
> The second implication is that you would have people be inferior
to you
> merely for your own amusement. Thank God for the superstitous? Are
not there
> lives often diminished by their superstition?
i am not any where near sure your implied conclusion is correct. no, i
can not say their lives are diminished. i dont know.
i do know a number of people who "believe in things not borne out
logically" and i do think those people's lives are enriching anyway.
some of them, in any case. about the same chances as all of us, i
think.
What about the children of
> parents who won't let them have needed transfusions.
you have picked the most extreme example (maybe) and of course i dont
agree with this practice. i am too logical.
Would you want your own
> children to believe in astrology merely to keep others from being
bored?
>
no, but i wouldnt mind if my children believed in astrology, and i
would talk about it with them. but if they still believed, that would
be their choice.
more correctly though, i wouldnt mind my children dabbling in astrology
if it kept THEM from being bored.
David, i was just being glib, as usual (and trying to be humorous in
one way, that was clearly missed?). of course, logic is a good thing.
but it is not the only thing, and in my world, not even the most
important thing. and yes, i think a most logical world would be too
boring for me. i like the illogical world we currently live in.
finally, David, your response here makes me wonder something. do you
believe in anything that is neither logical or provable?
can you see how others might?
and yet, also, those other's lives might be better for that "illogical"
belief?
just curious, dont feel the need to answer.
i can see you are way busy in other threads, lately.
Mike Caro
>>dont you mean "fortunately"?
>>if everyone did everything logically and/or correctly, all the time,
>>how boring would life (and poker) be? a world of spock-alikes makes me
>>shudder.
>>
>>thank heaven for the less intelligent.
>>praise the lord for the superstitious.
>>etc.
>>smile
>>Jonathan
>>
> There are two very nasty implications to the above post, though I don't
>think you realized it.
> The first implication is that it is boring to be logical. I could elaborate
>on this in some detail but it would be perhaps simpler to invoke the names of
>Steve Allen and Richarsd Feynman to disprove that point.
> The second implication is that you would have people be inferior to you
>merely for your own amusement. Thank God for the superstitous? Are not there
>lives often diminished by their superstition? What about the children of
>parents who won't let them have needed transfusions. Would you want your own
>children to believe in astrology merely to keep others from being bored?
David --
I believe that boulders are perfectly intelligent.
Imagine a landscape with only boulders. No trees, no grass -- no life
forms at all. There it is. See it? It is perfection within itself. All
it's missing is interpretation.
That's our job -- interpretation. But if we interpret perfectly,
without erring, without emotion, without doing that which is illogical
for contrast or for joy, what are we adding to the landscape? What are
we experiencing?
We are then only boulders of another form, boulders of a greater
stature, dominating in a predictable way over the rest.
I believe that perfection is a noble quest, but if you achieve it, you
lose. Been there. Done that.
Straight Flushes,
Mike Caro
Jonathan Kaplan
In article <20000828144904...@ng-fz1.aol.com>,
dskl...@aol.com (Dsklansky) wrote:
> ...There are two very nasty implications to the above post, though I
don't
> think you realized it.
thanks for the consideration, i appreciate it. didnt feel it till now,
but wanted to acknowledge your politeness. thank you.
> ... The second implication is that you would have people be inferior
to you
> merely for your own amusement.
i do not equate a belief in superstition, or even a lack of logic
skill, in another individual, with
"inferior" to me.
i never said, implied, or even alluded, to that negative word.
i try not to think that judgementally.
just so you know, i know some (usually) illogical people that i would
(if i had to do so), consider as "superior" to me, in a holistic way.
skill in logic is not all you are cracking it up to be, imo.
Quick
"Dsklansky" <dskl...@aol.com> wrote
> This is true for Barbara Yoon, Johnny Chan, and absolutely everyone
> else in between.
Lets see BY and JC define the all inclusive set. I wonder which
end JC is on?
-Quick
Dsklansky
>names of
>> Steve Allen and Richarsd Feynman to disprove that point.
>
Of course you can use exceptions to prove or in this case disprove a point.
Your point was that if everyone was logical the world would have to be boring.
>my opinion in this is that people that stress logic strongly tend to be
>boring people. perhaps very subjective on my part, but that is the way
>my experiences have borne out.
I don't disagree with this. However I believe that symdrome is due to the fact
that certain personality types are more apt to endure the difficulties inherent
in getting good at logical disciplines. Correlation, not causation, as Gary
Carson would say. This is a very important point. In other words I believe that
you incorrectly infer that the mere act of becoming smarter (logically
speaking) will make you more boring. The opposite is probably true. If you
could attach eloctrodes to your head rather than tediously study in order to
achieve the goal of, for instance, never fallaciously denying the antecedent,
your life wouild in fact probably become richer.
>i do know a number of people who "believe in things not borne out
>logically" and i do think those people's lives are enriching anyway.
But in general their enriching lives are in spite of their misconceptions
rather than because of it. This point is of course debatable. After all many
would argue that children are happier before they found out there was no Santa
Claus. But it is a trivial kind of happiness that I personally would not want
and I doubt you would either.
>no, but i wouldnt mind if my children believed in astrology, and i
>would talk about it with them. but if they still believed, that would
>be their choice.
>more correctly though, i wouldnt mind my children dabbling in astrology
>if it kept THEM from being bored.
>
Here I totally disagree. It is my understanding that astology has been totally
debunked through both double blind experiments and a refutation of the
underlying gravitational rationale. Given that this is true, I would consider
it a catastrophe if my son still believed in it. The fact that it kept him from
being bored would offer little solace.
>of course, logic is a good thing.
>but it is not the only thing, and in my world, not even the most
>important thing.
That is obviously true but in no way justifies your other assertions.
>and yes, i think a most logical world would be too
>boring for me. i like the illogical world we currently live in.
That is also probably true since as you say people like Steve Allen and Richard
Feynman are the exceptions. However again this is nasty on your part since you
are deriving amusemnt from people who for instance think that A implying B
means that B implies A. Don't get me wrong. I am amused by them too. Our
Internet forum was a lot more fun for me when some nitwits were posting to it.
But it is a mean way to have fun and you should admit it.
>finally, David, your response here makes me wonder something. do you
>believe in anything that is neither logical or provable?
>can you see how others might?
>and yet, also, those other's lives might be better for that "illogical"
>belief?
Anything that is not logically impossible has a certain probability of being
true. Rather than believing or not believing in something that can be neither
proved or disproved I prefer to assign a "price" in my mind. Example: My price
that Mary was a virgin (given she had a child) 50,000,000 -1 against. On the
other hand I would make life after death in some form only 10-1 against (See
the last chapter of Poker Gaming and Life).
lvdlrs
Gary (...) Philips
Edward Hutchison wrote:
> The next time you see a smoker, a nail biter, or someone who always raises with
> their "lucky" cards (7-2 offsuit?), you will know that, unfortunately,
> superstitious, illlogical behavior, is alive and well.
>
SwamperTw
well argue with a post.He knows everything and is never wrong.If you dont
believe me,just ask him.
Gary Carson
of people who believe in astrology or the psuedo-logic used by 50 year olds
who can use the results of an exam they took over 35 years ago to prove they
are smart .
Both are pretty funny. I'm not sure I'd want a world without either one.
Gary Carson
http://garycarson.home.mindspring.com
Dsklansky wrote in message <20000828144904...@ng-fz1.aol.com>...
>>dont you mean "fortunately"?
>>if everyone did everything logically and/or correctly, all the time,
>>how boring would life (and poker) be? a world of spock-alikes makes me
>>shudder.
>>
>>thank heaven for the less intelligent.
>>praise the lord for the superstitious.
>>etc.
>>smile
>>Jonathan
>>
> There are two very nasty implications to the above post, though I don't
>think you realized it.
> The first implication is that it is boring to be logical. I could
elaborate
>on this in some detail but it would be perhaps simpler to invoke the names
of
>Steve Allen and Richarsd Feynman to disprove that point.
> The second implication is that you would have people be inferior to
you
Gary Carson
approach to their sex life. I know Feynman didn't. I wonder if people who
do actually know what a sex life is.
--
Gary Carson
http://garycarson.home.mindspring.com (The Complete Book of Hold'Em Poker)
Jonathan Kaplan wrote in message <8oef33$ukd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <20000828144904...@ng-fz1.aol.com>,
> dskl...@aol.com (Dsklansky) wrote:
>> >dont you mean "fortunately"?
>> >if everyone did everything logically and/or correctly, all the time,
>> >how boring would life (and poker) be? a world of spock-alikes makes
>me
>> >shudder.
>> >
>> >thank heaven for the less intelligent.
>> >praise the lord for the superstitious.
>> >etc.
>> >smile
>> >Jonathan
>> >
>> There are two very nasty implications to the above post, though I
>don't
>> think you realized it.
>
>dont be so sure, although the word "nasty" is subjective, but okay.
>
>
>> The first implication is that it is boring to be logical. I could
>elaborate
>> on this in some detail but it would be perhaps simpler to invoke the
>names of
>> Steve Allen and Richarsd Feynman to disprove that point.
>
>you cant use exceptions to prove a point. at least, not well.
>my opinion in this is that people that stress logic strongly tend to be
>boring people. perhaps very subjective on my part, but that is the way
>my experiences have borne out.
>
>> The second implication is that you would have people be inferior
>to you
>> merely for your own amusement. Thank God for the superstitous? Are
>not there
>> lives often diminished by their superstition?
>
>i am not any where near sure your implied conclusion is correct. no, i
>can not say their lives are diminished. i dont know.
>i do know a number of people who "believe in things not borne out
>logically" and i do think those people's lives are enriching anyway.
>some of them, in any case. about the same chances as all of us, i
>think.
>
>What about the children of
>> parents who won't let them have needed transfusions.
>
>you have picked the most extreme example (maybe) and of course i dont
>agree with this practice. i am too logical.
>
>Would you want your own
>> children to believe in astrology merely to keep others from being
>bored?
>>
>
>no, but i wouldnt mind if my children believed in astrology, and i
>would talk about it with them. but if they still believed, that would
>be their choice.
>more correctly though, i wouldnt mind my children dabbling in astrology
>if it kept THEM from being bored.
>
>David, i was just being glib, as usual (and trying to be humorous in
>one way, that was clearly missed?). of course, logic is a good thing.
>but it is not the only thing, and in my world, not even the most
>important thing. and yes, i think a most logical world would be too
>boring for me. i like the illogical world we currently live in.
>
>finally, David, your response here makes me wonder something. do you
>believe in anything that is neither logical or provable?
>can you see how others might?
>and yet, also, those other's lives might be better for that "illogical"
>belief?
>just curious, dont feel the need to answer.
>i can see you are way busy in other threads, lately.
>smile
minus200
Barbara Yoon wrote:
> CardPlayerCruise [Linda Johnson]:
> > I sent Mason a private email asking for an apology on both RGP
> > and two plus two in order to save me the time consulting with
> > my attorney regarding the libel laws. I will seek legal advice if he
> > does not come up with an acceptable apology. I realize that after
> > his original post, he tried to backpedal [*** a.k.a., 'weaseling' ***],
> > but the original post was totally unfounded, malicious, and without
> > merit. He has stepped over the line with his ridiculous allegations.
> > Thank you all for your support on this matter.
>
> Don't worry any at all about it, Linda... You surely know that in the
> poker world, being smeared by S&M is actually a 'plus' for you...
Gary Carson
Where do you get the 20% from then? Others who have played with me would
estimate closer to 70% mistakes -- most of them think I don't have a clue.
Would I be a better player if I was ashamed about playing for stakes you
don't approve of?
I'm trying to master this logic thing, but I'm having problems it appears.
Gary Carson
SwamperTw
I meant a fencepost
CodeSavvy
Mason expresses an opinion that many don't like or agree with and the threats
and demands for lawsuits seemingly come from all quarters. I'll go out on a
limb and speculate that we won't see any lawsuits from Linda or Mike over this
issue.
Badger
It is not free speech to say "I suspect Tom Haley of embezzling in his last
job." It's not free speech to say "I'm sure Tom Haley was forced out of his
last job for his involvement with embezzling." It's not free speech to say
"Tom Haley was involved in a kiddie porn ring based out of the Orleans poker
room." These are all irresponsible slurs. What Mason and David have said
on this topic may or may not be legally actionable, but this sort of sleazy,
no-proof-at-all innuendo at perceived business enemies is the same sort of
speech as yelling fire in a theater. It's malicious, dangerous and a lie.
People are free to some lies, they are legally restricted from telling
others. But decent people do not tolerate malicious lies directed at
specific, innocent individuals -- especially when the lying, innuendo
spewers do it repeatedly.
Gary Carson
>I believe in freedom of speech and I don't think MM has done anything
>illegal.
He has made statements in the past that violated restraint of trade laws.
He's much more sleazy then even Badger thinks.
What he did that I'm sure violated restraint of trade laws was, during a
conversation with June Field where he was giving her serial rights to parts
of the new editions of the "advanced" books, he told her that I was "loose
cannon" and that he thought she should reconsider a contract she had with me
to print some of my work. June was influenced by that vieled threat to
renege on an existing contract with me.
I did collect a kill fee from June and she did nothing actionable. Mason
did however.
I didn't bring any action against Mason, and won't, becuase it's just not
worth it -- the provable damages are fairly trivial.
Make no mistake. Mason Malmuth is not an ethical businessman and he can't
be trusted. Truth is my defense if Mason doesn't like that statement.
David knows all about this. He has told me privately that he thinks Mason
was wrong in what he did, and he has asked me many times to please be nice
to Mason anyway. I frequently get private emails from David telling me how
brilliant I am and what deep insight into poker I have and, oh, by the way,
please be nice to Mason. A few weeks ago I even got an email from David
telling me how Mason had mentioned to him how much I showed a deep
understanding of poker.
They are both slimey. The are also very poor judges of other's character.
It just amazes me that either of them would think I'd take any of their
attempts to influence me as serious.
Gary Carson
> My problem with MM and DS is their lack of public relations savvy.
>Maybe they've already made their money and it doesn't matter to them what
>their potential customer's think. Maybe they subscribe to the notion that
>any publicity is good. But, the way I'm treated and the trust I have in
the
>supplier determines where I spend my money.
>
>JohnnyD
>
>
>
>"CodeSavvy" <CodeSavv...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:8oes1s$11...@drn.newsguy.com...
J AND SCAR
>From: Mike Caro ca...@caro.com
>Date: 08/28/2000 12:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <mriqORnH=A=+EnVBQ7TGtO7vyH=L...@4ax.com>
>
>On 28 Aug 2000 18:49:04 GMT, dskl...@aol.com (Dsklansky) wrote:
>
>>>dont you mean "fortunately"?
>>>if everyone did everything logically and/or correctly, all the time,
>>>how boring would life (and poker) be? a world of spock-alikes makes me
>>>shudder.
>>>
>>>thank heaven for the less intelligent.
>>>praise the lord for the superstitious.
>>>etc.
>>>smile
>>>Jonathan
>>>
>> There are two very nasty implications to the above post, though I don't
>>think you realized it.
>elaborate
>>on this in some detail but it would be perhaps simpler to invoke the names
>of
>>Steve Allen and Richarsd Feynman to disprove that point.
>>merely for your own amusement. Thank God for the superstitous? Are not there
>>parents who won't let them have needed transfusions. Would you want your own
>>children to believe in astrology merely to keep others from being bored?
>
>
>I believe that boulders are perfectly intelligent.
>
>Imagine a landscape with only boulders. No trees, no grass -- no life
>forms at all. There it is. See it? It is perfection within itself. All
>it's missing is interpretation.
>
>That's our job -- interpretation. But if we interpret perfectly,
>without erring, without emotion, without doing that which is illogical
>for contrast or for joy, what are we adding to the landscape? What are
>we experiencing?
>
>We are then only boulders of another form, boulders of a greater
>stature, dominating in a predictable way over the rest.
>
>I believe that perfection is a noble quest, but if you achieve it, you
>lose. Been there. Done that.
>
>Straight Flushes,
>Mike Caro
Mike,
That was absolutely beautiful...
Shelley
JohnnyD
timmer
Good luck in your present venture. I hope to see more of your posts here in the
future. You know, the RGP bunch loves you to death so, dont be a stranger .
timmer
CardPlayerCruise wrote:
> I sent Mason a private email asking for an apology on both RGP and two plus two
> in order to save me the time consulting with my attorney regarding the libel
> laws. I will seek legal advice if he does not come up with an acceptable
> apology. I realize that after his original post, he tried to backpedal, but the
> original post was totally unfounded, malicious, and without merit. He has
> stepped over the line with his ridiculous allegations. Thank you all for your
> support on this matter.
> Linda Johnson
> Card Player Cruises
fish...@my-deja.com
His "spirit" is what giving is all about. There may be no fat man in a
red suit, but rest assured he does exist. My children and now
grandchildren have asked me "Is there really a Santa Claus"? I answer,
yes he is the spirit of Christmas giving.
In article <20000828165450...@ng-fk1.aol.com>,
dskl...@aol.com (Dsklansky) wrote:
> >> on this in some detail but it would be perhaps simpler to invoke
the
> >names of
> >> Steve Allen and Richarsd Feynman to disprove that point.
> >
>
point.
> Your point was that if everyone was logical the world would have to
be boring.
>
be
> >boring people. perhaps very subjective on my part, but that is the
way
> >my experiences have borne out.
>
the fact
> that certain personality types are more apt to endure the
difficulties inherent
> in getting good at logical disciplines. Correlation, not causation,
as Gary
> Carson would say. This is a very important point. In other words I
believe that
> you incorrectly infer that the mere act of becoming smarter (logically
> speaking) will make you more boring. The opposite is probably true.
If you
> could attach eloctrodes to your head rather than tediously study in
order to
> achieve the goal of, for instance, never fallaciously denying the
antecedent,
> your life wouild in fact probably become richer.
>
> >logically" and i do think those people's lives are enriching anyway.
>
misconceptions
> rather than because of it. This point is of course debatable. After
all many
> would argue that children are happier before they found out there was
no Santa
> Claus. But it is a trivial kind of happiness that I personally would
not want
> and I doubt you would either.
>
> >would talk about it with them. but if they still believed, that would
> >be their choice.
> >more correctly though, i wouldnt mind my children dabbling in
astrology
> >if it kept THEM from being bored.
> >
>
been totally
> debunked through both double blind experiments and a refutation of the
> underlying gravitational rationale. Given that this is true, I would
consider
> it a catastrophe if my son still believed in it. The fact that it
kept him from
> being bored would offer little solace.
>
> >but it is not the only thing, and in my world, not even the most
> >important thing.
>
>
> >boring for me. i like the illogical world we currently live in.
>
and Richard
> Feynman are the exceptions. However again this is nasty on your part
since you
> are deriving amusemnt from people who for instance think that A
implying B
> means that B implies A. Don't get me wrong. I am amused by them too.
Our
> Internet forum was a lot more fun for me when some nitwits were
posting to it.
> But it is a mean way to have fun and you should admit it.
>
> >believe in anything that is neither logical or provable?
> >can you see how others might?
> >and yet, also, those other's lives might be better for
that "illogical"
> >belief?
>
of being
> true. Rather than believing or not believing in something that can be
neither
> proved or disproved I prefer to assign a "price" in my mind. Example:
My price
> that Mary was a virgin (given she had a child) 50,000,000 -1 against.
On the
> other hand I would make life after death in some form only 10-1
against (See
> the last chapter of Poker Gaming and Life).
>
>
fish...@my-deja.com
with his advice. In article <20000828123808.20581.00000018@ng-
ba1.aol.com>,
WenMax
>>
>> For those of you who are interested in exactly what I said, I invite you to
>come
>> to our Other Topics forum, at www.twoplustwo.com. The title of the thread
>is
>> Orleans Poker Room Scandal. I did not start the thread, but was responding
>to
>> other posts.
>
>Well this is what you posted on 2+2:
>
>> I actually think the scandal is bigger than we will ever know. I also
>suspect that the scandal
>> has something to do with Mike Sexton becoming a consultant for the
>Tournament of
>> Champions (leaving his current position) and Linda Johnson stepping down as
>publisher
>> of CARD PLAYER sooner than anyone expected. "
This is like writing, "sir, when did you stop beating your wife?"
If Johnson and Sexton seem to be promoting tournaments, it may be because
tournament doings are interesting reading, unlike incomprehensible math and
excerps of books weve already read!
WenMax
>scandal.
>
>DrToast"
When did Mike Caro stop stealing money from tournaments?
Wenatchee Max