My e-mail to GCA concerning Doyle
Daniel Negreanu
me that it is an issue that should be addressed. I DID send an e-mail
to GCA when they first came out on the rgp scene. I was curious. I
was very interested to find out what they KNEW, or what they could
PROVE concerning their allegations. They provided me with absolutely
nothing. They provided me with a bunch of stories I'd already heard
before.
I was hoping to get some 'inside information' from them. Hopefully
something concrete and solid. In order to get this type of
information, I thought it might be a good idea to try to earn their
trust.
So, I told them exactly what they wanted to hear- period. That
e-mail was no secret to anybody I knew. I told many people what my
intentions were at the time. Only recently, since the GCA posts about
the e-mail, have I explained my intentions to Doyle. I haven't
addressed Russ' posts about this, because I don't feel there is much
to gain by discussing things with him.
The GCA has REPEATEDLY mixed fact with fiction. Yes, I'm sure some
of the things they've said about the past are factual, but when they
speak of current events, it's beyond laughable. They know shit about
the Bellagio, they know shit about the current state of tournament
poker, and they know shit about the current status of the Commerce top
section.
I have stated publicly that Men Nguyen is a tournament cheat. I'm
comfortable saying that, because I KNOW that to be fact. As for
Doyle? I've heard rumours. Mostly crap from the GCA. There has
never been one shred of evidence attaching Doyle to any unethical
behaviour at a poker table.
I have absolutely no incentive to protect Doyle's image or
reputation. We aren't exactly 'friends', nor are we enemies. I feel
compelled to do what's right, because Doyle has suffered far too much
negative attention at the hands of the GCA that is somewhat
irrepairable.
Originally, when I heard about what was to come of the GCA's
'cleaning up of poker', I was truly excited. Then I found out who
they actually were, and their motives behind doing what they are
doing. That excitement quickly turned to disgust.
There are grains of truth to 'some' of their posts, but they fill in
the gaps with assumptions, and creative lies. Russ, is a truly
twisted character...
My apologies to Doyle in advance, as I'm sure Russ will likely post
my e-mail to rgp. NOTHING in that e-mail reflects my true opinion of
Doyle. If I felt that Doyle was a dishonest poker player in any way,
I would have no problem saying so publicly.
I put my neck out on the line exposing Men for the cheat that he is.
I'm not 'afraid' of doing what it takes to try to help get poker
cleaned up. However, by accusing Doyle Brunson, Russ is CLEARLY
barking up the wrong tree.
Daniel Negreanu
kidp...@hotmail.com
RazzO
Don't feel alone, lad.
razzo
--
Any comments or statements made are not necessarily those of any
employer or client, their subsidiaries, or affiliates.
---------------------------------------------
2002 World Series of Poker Schedule
http://www.razzo.com/2002wsopschedule
= = =
Binion's Horseshoe Chat Room
http://binions.com/chat.html
==================================
RAZZO.COM | EMAIL:
http://www.razzo.com | ra...@razzo.com
AlwaysAware
>Ok, well I never wanted to get into this, but it's become obvious to
>me that it is an issue that should be addressed. I DID send an e-mail
>to GCA when they first came out on the rgp scene.
Daniel, you are relatively young - you will probably learn many of lifes lesson
along the road, (hopefully not all of them the hard way) if you never wanted it
to get to this then don't go opening Pandora's Box. Think Physics for every
action there is an opposite and equal reaction (or some such, but you get it,
right)
> I was curious. I
>was very interested to find out what they KNEW, or what they could
>PROVE concerning their allegations. They provided me with absolutely
>nothing. They provided me with a bunch of stories I'd already heard
>before.
> I was hoping to get some 'inside information' from them. Hopefully
>something concrete and solid. In order to get this type of
>information, I thought it might be a good idea to try to earn their
>trust.
Earn the trust of admitted cheats?
> So, I told them exactly what they wanted to hear- period. That
>e-mail was no secret to anybody I knew. I told many people what my
>intentions were at the time. Only recently, since the GCA posts about
>the e-mail, have I explained my intentions to Doyle.
Oh, so since it was no secret to anybody you knew it was OK, even though Doyle
was unfairly being maligned at the time. By all means then tell them exactly
what they wanted to hear. Years from now I hope you can understand when the
tables are turned and some young buck does the same to you.
> I haven't
>addressed Russ' posts about this, because I don't feel there is much
>to gain by discussing things with him.
> The GCA has REPEATEDLY mixed fact with fiction. Yes, I'm sure some
>of the things they've said about the past are factual, but when they
>speak of current events, it's beyond laughable. They know shit about
>the Bellagio, they know shit about the current state of tournament
>poker, and they know shit about the current status of the Commerce top
>section.
> I have stated publicly that Men Nguyen is a tournament cheat. I'm
>comfortable saying that, because I KNOW that to be fact. As for
>Doyle? I've heard rumours. Mostly crap from the GCA. There has
>never been one shred of evidence attaching Doyle to any unethical
>behaviour at a poker table.
> I have absolutely no incentive to protect Doyle's image or
>reputation. We aren't exactly 'friends', nor are we enemies. I feel
>compelled to do what's right, because Doyle has suffered far too much
>negative attention at the hands of the GCA that is somewhat
>irrepairable.
> Originally, when I heard about what was to come of the GCA's
>'cleaning up of poker', I was truly excited. Then I found out who
>they actually were, and their motives behind doing what they are
>doing. That excitement quickly turned to disgust.
Well, too bad you didn't do a little more research before deciding to play
footsy with them. Careful who you make your bed with.
> There are grains of truth to 'some' of their posts, but they fill in
>the gaps with assumptions, and creative lies. Russ, is a truly
>twisted character...
>
> My apologies to Doyle in advance, as I'm sure Russ will likely post
>my e-mail to rgp.
Well, as long as you are sorry (yes this line is scarcastic)
> NOTHING in that e-mail reflects my true opinion of
>Doyle.
Well then why write it in an email that could come back to bite you? Why be
"dishonest" trying to obtain information. If there information is real, there
is no need for this. You are lowereing yourself, your reputation and fueling a
fire in their already twisted minds. Why choose to sleep with the enemy when no
many other options are available?
If I felt that Doyle was a dishonest poker player in any way,
>I would have no problem saying so publicly.
> I put my neck out on the line exposing Men for the cheat that he is.
> I'm not 'afraid' of doing what it takes to try to help get poker
>cleaned up.
Great. May I suggest that you go about it in an "honest" way, forget about
being Columbo and don't let the excitement of your "leads" get in the way being
anything than less than honest in your approach, unless you one day you plan
to cross into that gray area and become one of them.
AlwaysAware
>Why choose to sleep with the enemy when no
>many other options are available?
>
Should read:
Why choose to sleep with the enemy when SO many other options are available?
Joan
Vince
">> I have stated publicly that Men Nguyen is a tournament cheat. I'm
> comfortable saying that, because I KNOW that to be fact.
I have no information on this subject, but it seems to me that you have an
obligation to explain the facts and show evidence when you assert publicly
that a poker player is a cheat. What is your evidence?
Vince
Quang Le
"Daniel Negreanu" <kidp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7220404a.0201...@posting.google.com...
> I have stated publicly that Men Nguyen is a tournament cheat. I'm
> comfortable saying that, because I KNOW that to be fact. As for
> Doyle? I've heard rumours. Mostly crap from the GCA. There has
> never been one shred of evidence attaching Doyle to any unethical
> behaviour at a poker table.
Daniel,
You may be a world class poker player but a small village child in life.
Under the pressure that GCA exposed your mail, you came back and declared
Doyle is clean as blank sheet. Apology and excuse won't cut it when you try
touch people reputation.
You was the one that sling mud around and wonder why your hand is dirty.
From your and GCA posts we assumed that you did ask GCA: "I heard that Doyle
is a cheat and I believe it. Can you send me some stories?" They didn't but
they used your mail as a proof that more people believe Doyle cheating.
Now you repeated your fishing expedition with Men and got a positive
response from "credible" person and you declare it a fact. A fact is where
you would have physical evidence or widely known that we can independently
verify. You haven't shown a fact yet about Men. But that is ok you are not
obligated to anyone but yourself.
The issue is if you are positive that Men is a cheat why would you allow him
continue to cheat you?
The next time you and he enter the same tournament you should go to
tournament director and ask him to bar Men or you wouldn't play and see if
anyone follows you. You should act on your principle or you have none of
it. The last thing we would want to hear is that you and Men get into the
final table, you lose, and declare Men is a cheat again.
||
John Harkness
Aug
Use google to search. Daniel explained it in detail.
Gary Carson
a cheat you are lying, and when you say you know Men is a cheat you
aren't a liar?
So you are saying that you're word cant be counted on unless you
aren't lying, and we can tell whether you are lying by whether or not
you share it with your drinking buddies?
How about welching on bets? Do you do that?
On 18 Jan 2002 03:44:10 -0800, kidp...@hotmail.com (Daniel Negreanu)
wrote:
Gary Carson
http:// garycarson.home.mindspring.com
Gary Carson
>>From: kidp...@hotmail.com (Daniel Negreanu)
>>my e-mail to rgp.
>
>
>
>> NOTHING in that e-mail reflects my true opinion of
>>Doyle.
>
>
>Well then why write it in an email that could come back to bite you?
Because Danny just can't be trusted. He thinks lies and deciet are
acceptable behavior.
If you recall, back before he reneged on the poker match he challanged
me to he had a friend of his approach me under false pretenses to try
to uncover my plans for the game. He has no qualms about lying, he
has no qualms about asking his drinking buddies to lie for him.
I have no idea where anybody got the idea that the boy has any
character at all.
GCA
On the e mail, it states you "KNOW DOYLE IS A CHEAT". The e mail was
written many months ago. Secondly, you have accused Men the Master of
Cheating, yet haven't pursued the issue. Thus, it seems ok with you
for this type of practice to continue. This makes you a LIAR when you
state you were fishing. This was not the terminology on the e mail.
Finally you are a coward, you have accused at least one person
piblicly and yet back down and go about business. The least I would of
done is "boycott" any tournament Men the Master plays in. The casino
world has put pressure on you and you are capitulatuing.
You have no "character" as Gary Carson has stated. And I will be
printing your e mail for the public to see what you wrote to me. I
have numerous copies printed. However, I am not that literate on the
computer and will thus type the e mail verbatim. However, I have the
real one or ones since I made copies. I would be glad to mail a copy
out to any who wanted one in case they don't believe the one I post.
The same thing occured with 60 Minutes.
I have already told people have I have more CLASS than these people
you think
are the real deal. I have never e mailed any one in my life that
didn't e mail me first. Daniel and I have had many e mails between us.
You will see the lies from what he has just posted from what he
stated.
Daniel is saving his skin since accusing Men. The industry doesn't
like one of it's own attacking one of its own. Daniel now has to be a
good by. Daniel, you are a COWARD and a LIAR. Capable of "betraying"
any one at any time. This is the worst in my book. The people I write
about were never really friends. They and I were cheats and
asssociates to conspire to cheat others out of their money. I state
this. I don't like it. I am not a good person, but I will have to live
with it. not you.
You and the people like you are the ones that are doing the real
damage to poker. You get bought up by the industry like $100 dollar
hookers. Scared of them cuting you out. I know you have no "physical
proof" as I don't either on many things. However, you know the "common
knowledge" yet you even lie about this for your own safety. Well I
could give a rats ass about my safety.
I tell the truth and have much information. I am not backing down to
the threats or the intimidation.
kidp...@hotmail.com (Daniel Negreanu) wrote in message news:<7220404a.0201...@posting.google.com>...
MadKarma3
>damage to poker.
You know what Russ? Fuck you.
Certainly not the first or last time you've heard that, so the words might be
meaningless at this point.
You were showering Daniel with praise just two weeks ago and now you are
calling him names and using him to benefit your demented little love affair
with Doyle.
You, in six months (or your career for that matter) have not done a damn thing
to benefit poker.
Your cheating was not to benefit poker.
GCA was not created to benefit poker.
Blackmailing Daniel will not benefit poker.
Nothing you have ever done or likely ever will do has or will benefit poker.
In one little post Daniel gave more "poker truth" than the 2991 (at last count)
posts GCA has crated or generated in this newsgroup since it's conception.
Maybe his character is questionable. I am not to judge that, and you
*certainly* aren't the one to judge anyones character. Your character is not
questionable, it is blatantly obvious.
Piss off....
Madk....
Daniel Negreanu
> >From: kidp...@hotmail.com (Daniel Negreanu)
>
> >Ok, well I never wanted to get into this, but it's become obvious to
> >me that it is an issue that should be addressed. I DID send an e-mail
> >to GCA when they first came out on the rgp scene.
>
> Daniel, you are relatively young - you will probably learn many of lifes lesson
> along the road, (hopefully not all of them the hard way) if you never wanted it
> to get to this then don't go opening Pandora's Box. Think Physics for every
> action there is an opposite and equal reaction (or some such, but you get it,
> right)
The cost was too high not to address this manner. I truly didn't
want to reply to the GCA posts, but my silence could come off as
though I thought Doyle was dishonest. I don't think he is dishonest,
but GCA's posts have certainly hurt his reputation. I never meant to
give them credibility, and/or further damage Doyle's reputation.
I fully understand why Russ has tried to destroy Doyle's reputation.
Russ has tried to extort money from him, to no evail. Russ' motives
are simple- money. Once nobody gave Russ any 'hush' money, all he was
left with was his continuous rants and raves on rgp.
By the way Russ, you can add me to the list of people that won't
give you any hush money to get you back in the 10-20 games...
Daniel Negreanu
kidp...@hotmail.com
Daniel Negreanu
>
> You may be a world class poker player but a small village child in life.
> Under the pressure that GCA exposed your mail, you came back and declared
> Doyle is clean as blank sheet. Apology and excuse won't cut it when you try
> touch people reputation.
Again, I never once stated on rgp that I thought Doyle was a
dishonest poker player. Never.
> You was the one that sling mud around and wonder why your hand is dirty.
> From your and GCA posts we assumed that you did ask GCA: "I heard that Doyle
> is a cheat and I believe it. Can you send me some stories?"
Something like that. I was curious to find out what they knew, or
what they thought they knew. It's become clear that they know a whole
lot about the past, and absolutely nothing about the present. They
have told the same stories over and over on rgp, and yet have proven
nothing at all about their claims regarding present day poker.
They didn't but
> they used your mail as a proof that more people believe Doyle cheating.
How in the world is my e-mail proof that 'more people believe Doyle
cheating'? What are you talking about exactly? It was stupid of me
to send that e-mail years ago. I screwed up, no question about it.
So my e-mail is what Russ has to go on as far as proof of cheating is
concerned? LOL.
> Now you repeated your fishing expedition with Men and got a positive
> response from "credible" person and you declare it a fact. A fact is where
> you would have physical evidence or widely known that we can independently
> verify. You haven't shown a fact yet about Men. But that is ok you are not
> obligated to anyone but yourself.
Ok, I stated publicly that Men told me to my face what happened in
1998 with him and Nhut Tran. I also saw it with my own eyes. I have
two other witnesses that also saw that event take place, one of those
who corroborated my story here on rgp. I'm more than willing to take
a polygraph that what happened in 98', happened exactly as I said it
did. Again, I guess this isn't physical evidence, but in terms of
cheating at poker, what type of 'physical' evidence can one obtain? A
tape recording? Well sorry. Unfortunately I wasn't wearing a wire
back in 98'.
> The issue is if you are positive that Men is a cheat why would you allow him
> continue to cheat you?
I honestly believe, that my efforts on rgp will have a positive
impact on Men cheating 'less often', for fear of being caught. I play
poker for a living, even with Men cheating I still get positive equity
from playing in the tournaments.
Daniel Negreanu
kidp...@hotmail.com
AlwaysAware
> The cost was too high not to address this manner. I truly didn't
>want to reply to the GCA posts, but my silence could come off as
>though I thought Doyle was dishonest. I don't think he is dishonest,
That part I understand, and agree that your silence could come off otherwise.
The part that I was addressing, was involving yourself in a manner than was
less than honest.
>but GCA's posts have certainly hurt his reputation. I never meant to
>give them credibility, and/or further damage Doyle's reputation.
We all at one time or another have done something that bares
results/consequences we did not intend. The question we have to ask ourselves
is if we learned anything, so we don't repeat it. Trying to be "openly covert"
solved what? Whatever you intention was going in, perhaps you need to look at
the result and rethink your method.
(rest of post snipped)
Joan
Daniel Negreanu
> Let's see if I've got this straight -- when you say you think Doyle is
> a cheat you are lying, and when you say you know Men is a cheat you
> aren't a liar?
Again, I never publicly stated that I thought Doyle was a cheat. I
don't. As I've said before, I'm willing to take a polygraph to help
prove what I said about Men is true.
You have the right to believe what you wish of course. Have I ever
lied before? Yes.
I once told my mother that was at a friend's house when I was
actually at the pool hall.
I once told my mother that I didn't smoke any cigarettes at school,
but I had.
I once told my girlfriend she didn't look fat in that dress, but she
did.
Add to that, another foolish lie that I sent to GCA that I
completely regret doing now. Oops, live and learn...
Daniel Negreanu
kidp...@hotmail.com
Patrick B. OMalley
has facts of Men. He is sharing them with us so we can watch it as well or
take action if we please. You say he called Doyle a liar and he says he was
looking for information when he called Doyle a liar. So what....Let us make a
decision on what his intentions were and move on. GCA you are barking up the
wrong tree. Move on to someone that is cheating instead of someone that is
looking for cheaters. And if he finds one, he can deal with it how he wants,
not how you feel he should.
debbie
"Patrick B. OMalley" <pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020118172906...@mb-fo.aol.com...
> Daniel has his eyes open for signs of cheating. He has suspicions of
Doyle and
> has facts of Men.
Really? I am reading that he believes Doyle is lily-white.
Gary Carson
wrote:
He's said that. He's also said otherwise.
Gary Carson
wrote:
>garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu (Gary Carson) wrote in message
news:<3c4878b2...@news.mindspring.com>...
>> Let's see if I've got this straight -- when you say you think Doyle
is
>> a cheat you are lying, and when you say you know Men is a cheat you
>> aren't a liar?
>
> Again, I never publicly stated that I thought Doyle was a cheat. I
No, you just said that in private.
is true.
> You have the right to believe what you wish of course. Have I ever
>lied before? Yes.
> I once told my mother that was at a friend's house when I was
>actually at the pool hall.
If your moral compass doesn't tell you the difference between a child
lying to his mother to get out of trouble and a grown man lying about
someone else to impress someone then you need to get that moral
compass fixed. You won't find the fix in a beer bottle either, Danny.
MGuzz55625
Give him break, Gary. Daniel already said he wasn't telling the truth when he
said he believe Doyle was a cheat ....... you should run for office with this
kind of spin.
BTW, really love your book and it's sad to see my favorite poker player and my
new favorite poker author not getting along. :-(
"That's just my opinion, I could be wrong." -- DM
Nick
AL
>From: garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu (Gary Carson)
WoW!
Talk about something being blown way out of proportion...
!) GCA mentions this email to enhance their "cause".
2) Daniel posts defending his actions by explaining his motives.
(understandable to me - I've told people what they want to hear many times to
gain their confidence. Is it morally wrong? not my call, nor Daniels.)
Also - it is QUITE possible that Daniel meant what he said to GCA, but is
unable to say it publically because of certain reasons. Just because Russ can
hide out persuing his vendetta doesn't mean that Daniel is able to do it.
3) people use this to discredit and bash Daniel. Wrong..it is GCA who used
Daniel, not the other way around.
>If your moral compass doesn't tell you the difference between a child
>lying to his mother to get out of trouble and a grown man lying about
>someone else to impress someone then you need to get that moral
>compass fixed.
Um... he was tryin to be humorous, Gary.
I am surprised you couldn't realize that. Maybe your distain for Daniel has
altered the "I can tell a joke from fact" brain cell ?
Gary Carson
>
>3) people use this to discredit and bash Daniel. Wrong..it is GCA who
used
>Daniel, not the other way around.
Yes.
Danny got involved because he was trying to use GCA. He just screwed
it up.
Jarrett40
>BTW, really love your book and it's sad to see my favorite poker player and
>my
>new favorite poker author not getting along. :-(
>
Your favorite poker player is someone other than yourself? I find this
exceedingly strange. My favorite poker player is and always will be....me.
Jarrett40
sternroolz
unethical play in tournaments. Simply put, if the image of "dirty play" in
poker went away, there would be a much larger "poker universe".
"Quang Le" <q...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:xeX18.5865$HS4.1...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
pj
> garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu (Gary Carson) wrote in message news:<3c4878b2...@news.mindspring.com>...
> > Let's see if I've got this straight -- when you say you think Doyle is
> > a cheat you are lying, and when you say you know Men is a cheat you
> > aren't a liar?
>
> Again, I never publicly stated that I thought Doyle was a cheat. I
> don't. As I've said before, I'm willing to take a polygraph to help
I wish people would quit all this shit about polygraphs.
Polygraphs are a pseudo-scientific joke. Top spy Robert Hanson passed
tons of polygraphs. Aldrich Ames, who made a joke out of CIA security
and passed the royal nuts to the Russians, passed tons of polygraphs.
Wen Ho Lee passed polygraphs, probably because he didn't do anything,
but a couple of months later some guys at FBI headquarters decided
that this and that squiggly line actually meant he was lying so off to
the shackles with him.
Polygraphs are the tools of tinpot mediocre fascists with no
imagination.
Oh, poker? Carry on...
kron
U.S. News & World Report, Jan 15, 2001 v130 i2 p40
Truth and consequences. (brain fingerprinting in lie detection) Nell
Boyce.
Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2001 U.S. News and World Report, Inc.
On July 22, 1977, the body of retired police Captain John Schweer lay
bleeding on a railroad track in Council Bluffs, Iowa. Blame for the
murder
fell on teenager Terry Harrington, who has spent over two decades in a
state penitentiary protesting his innocence. Now Harrington says he
finally
has proof that exonerates him. A new technology called "brain
fingerprinting" suggests that Harrington's brain doesn't contain
memories
of the crime scene, but it does recognize specific details about the
concert he says he attended on that fateful night.
Reading someone's memories through a helmet of electrodes sounds like
science fiction. But surprisingly, scientists say they can do just
that.
The Harrington case is the first time lawyers have ever submitted such
brain measurements to a U.S. court, and within days a judge will
either
reject them as "junk science" or accept them as evidence that could
help
reopen Harrington's case.
Until now, detectives have only had polygraph machines, or "lie
detectors,"
to search for physiological measures of guilt and lies. But critics
say
polygraphs are hopelessly flawed because they measure emotional
responses
like blood pressure, breathing, and sweating. Nervous truth-tellers
can
appear guilty while cool liars look innocent, and people can beat the
machine. Although polygraph tests have been the mainstay of lie
detection
since the 1920s, they're controversial enough that most states don't
allow
them as evidence. This month, the National Academy of Sciences will
start a
major review of polygraph tests' scientific validity at the request of
the
Department of Energy, which uses them to screen employees.
Many researchers hope they can do better than polygraphs by targeting
the
source of the lie: the brain. The "brain fingerprinting" technique
used on
Harrington was developed by Lawrence Farwell, a scientist and
businessman
at Brain Wave Science in Fairfield, Iowa. Farwell's technique exploits
a
signal that the brain emits when it perceives something familiar.
If a person watches random numbers flash on a screen, for example, the
brain will suddenly show a distinctive electrical response called the
P300
if personal information like a home phone number pops up. Scientists
have
known about the P300 response for decades, but no one has tried to
apply it
in a real-world criminal situation. Farwell believes it is valid in
the
Harrington case because he found details about the crime and
Harrington's
alibi that weren't in court transcripts or newspapers. For example,
the
murderer escaped by running behind a building through waist-high weeds
and
grass. According to Farwell, the real murderer would remember tearing
through this thick underbrush. But when Farwell showed Harrington a
photo
of the building, the convict said he didn't know what lay behind it.
And
when presented with words such as "cement and blacktop," "sand and
gravel,"
and "weeds and grass," Harrington had no special brain response to the
correct answer.
Lacking knowledge. The test isn't a lie detector and doesn't prove
Harrington's innocence, Farwell says. But Harrington "does not have
certain
critical details about the crime stored in his brain. A judge or jury
must
decide how they're going to interpret that."
The idea that knowledge stored in the brain can be used to determine
guilt
is an old one, and it even has a name: the Guilty Knowledge Test. In
1959,
David Lykken of the University of Minnesota first proposed that
detectives
could present suspects with multiple-choice questions to see if they
would
react to specifics that only the perpetrator would know. The challenge
is
to find biological measures of that reaction that aren't affected by
emotional responses. Brain scanning might be one way, but researchers
also
have others.
Someday, investigators could check to see if a suspect knows other
criminals or victims by tracking eye movements. That's because the
brain
scans familiar faces differently than it does strangers' faces.
Another way
of getting into the brain might be to look at response times. Travis
Seymour, a cognitive psychologist at the University of Michigan-Ann
Arbor,
has studied how quickly people can press buttons while being shown
information on a computer screen. When presented with words and images
that
they either know or don't know, he has found it takes people longer to
press a "don't recognize" button when they're lying--nearly twice as
long
as when they truly do or don't know.
One problem with such Guilty Knowledge tests is that they won't work
for
screening exams, which by definition involve questioning people about
unknown crimes. But scientists are making progress on that front as
well.
"I don't know about you, but when I'm lying, I'm aware of it. There's
got
to be some sort of substrate for that awareness in the brain. It's
just a
matter of finding the right tools to unmask that substrate," says
Peter
Rosenfeld of Northwestern University. Rosenfeld is currently trying to
use
electrical readings other than P300 to see if he can find a telltale
profile for lying.
Researchers already have preliminary evidence that brain-imaging scans
can
be used to distinguish lying from truth telling, according to Stephen
Kosslyn of Harvard University. It's not as simple as a Pinocchio lobe
lighting up on scans when a person lies. Different types of lies, such
as
spontaneous or premeditated fibs, seem to depend on different brain
areas.
Kosslyn's been able to distinguish between lies and truth on brain
scans by
looking at ratios of activity in various brain regions and time lags
in
those regions' activation.
Scanning for lies. This brain imaging work is a real breakthrough in
lie
detection, agrees Terrence Sejnowski of the Salk Institute for
Biological
Studies in La Jolla, Calif. Sejnowski's currently working on a
computer
program that can detect lies by analyzing fleeting facial expressions.
It's
an offshoot of work pioneered by Paul Ekman, a psychologist at the
University of California-San Francisco, who can watch people on
videotape
and catch liars by analyzing almost imperceptible expressions like
eyelid
flutters and strained smiles. But it takes experts like Ekman an hour
to
catalog all the microexpressions on one minute of videotape. The goal
is to
train a computer that can do the analysis in real time, so that a
computer
with a camera could screen people for lying without them even knowing
it.
Is the world really ready for a foolproof lie detector? A world
without
lying has been explored in popular movies like Liar Liar, and the
prospect
generally seems to make people nervous. Yet those who feel they've
been
wrongly imprisoned will embrace any new technology that might set them
free. "I have many, many requests from people on death row and people
in
law enforcement," says Farwell. "I think in many of these cases, we'll
be
able to shed some light on what they do or do not know about the
crime."
Eventually, brain fingerprinting and other new methods will likely
find
their way into courtrooms, where it will then be up to judges and
jurors to
decide where the truth lies.
TadPerry01
And it took you until what age to realize lieing can get you in trouble?
Here's news, Daniel, and you might not like it but you'll know what you're
dealing with in the realm of public opinion:
I don't believe you when you say you didn't mean it. It seems too "convenient"
and the easiest route out of hot water.
I believe what you've said about Men is a true personal experience. I also
think your exposing it was motivated by a desire to hurt him out of some type
of grudge or emotional issue with him rather than some noble goal of helping
poker or being some sort of goodwill ambassador.
It has the added benefit of making you look good.
After all, you didn't go to the floor with it, or rush to your computer to tell
the world, at the time you found out. The actual timing and events are more
telling about your motivations, and it definitely exposes something of your
true character (or lack thereof).
And so when it comes to Doyle, I just don't believe you.
It would show even more integrity to say: "I really have wondered if Doyle
cheats, but I have no evidence whatsoever, and wouldn't be suprised to find
that he doesn't."
I mean, if you're checking into it, then you clearly believe it and are looking
for dirt. And talking behind people's backs, getting dirt on them, gossip, and
so on, all look to be in your repertoire.
You're not the only moral person around who says it like he sees it.
tvp
TadPerry01
>>Subject: Re: My e-mail to GCA concerning Doyle
>>From: garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu (Gary Carson)
>
>
>WoW!
>Talk about something being blown way out of proportion...
>
>!) GCA mentions this email to enhance their "cause".
>
>2) Daniel posts defending his actions by explaining his motives.
>(understandable to me - I've told people what they want to hear many times to
>gain their confidence. Is it morally wrong? not my call, nor Daniels.)
It better be someone's call. It really can lead to huge problems. It misleads
people. That means they go somewhere they would never go otherwise, and when
they get there, it's YOUR responsibility.
>Also - it is QUITE possible that Daniel meant what he said to GCA, but is
>unable to say it publically because of certain reasons. Just because Russ can
>hide out persuing his vendetta doesn't mean that Daniel is able to do it.
>
>3) people use this to discredit and bash Daniel. Wrong..it is GCA who used
>Daniel, not the other way around.
It was true until he made his current post.
Now they use each other.
tvp
GCA
Brunson. You are the one lacking credibility. I have all I need,
otherwise people would not be responding. I have an e mail from you
stating; You "know" Doyle is a cheat. I will print it along with the
other information on the e mail. You are the one that is broke, not
me. If I didn't have back up, I would never have destroyed my poker
playing life. Which, you also corroborated. Like I need you
endorsement. You are a "joke" to the REAL POKER PLAYERS, just like MEN
is.
Keep lying "small fry", because that is all you are. Kissing ass to
get back into the "political good graces", something I have never and
will never do. But, then again I have your e mails, don't I. They will
make interesting reading for the public, since I will print them. You
are a "liar" and a "coward". You are also broke, something that I am
not. I may owe $500,000 or more in dedt, but I have a $100,000 in my
pocket. The money I owe is on credit cards. I also have quite a lot of
borrowing power, besides the earning power I have.
You have never and will never be in my league Daniel, so keep
attacking. I ask no quarter, but I do give some when I care to. You do
not get any. Fire your best shots before I print the e mails. Lets see
what you have say after they are printed.
kidp...@hotmail.com (Daniel Negreanu) wrote in message news:<7220404a.02011...@posting.google.com>...
GCA
us to go easy on Jennifer Harman.. WHY?
kidp...@hotmail.com (Daniel Negreanu) wrote in message news:<7220404a.02011...@posting.google.com>...
Gary Carson
>
>Give him break, Gary. Daniel already said he wasn't telling the
truth when he
>said he believe Doyle was a cheat ....... you should run for office
with this
>kind of spin.
But I think he was telling the truth then and is lieing about it now.
AL
>From: garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu (Gary Carson)
>But I think he was telling the truth then and is lieing about it now.
Maybe he lied when he said he was telling the truth, or
Maybe he told the truth when he said he was lieing, or
Maybe he really was telling the truth when he said he was telling the truth,
or....
Maybe he really was lieing when he said he was lieing, or................
Paul Gennaro
news:20020119130547...@mb-ct.aol.com...
This is where game theory can come into play.
-Paul
GCA
Men is a cheat. I was proud Daniel had the "nerve" to state this. He
saw it. Now, a few weeks later. every thing is under the rug.
Apparently it is OK for Men to cheat in tournaments.
By the way, GCA accused Men of "cheating" a long time ago. Since these
few weeks, Daniel has attacked GCA and our credibility. Well, I will
show you who has the credibility. Daniel is LYING. I have many e mails
from him. What has been done about the "cheating accusations" made by
Daniel and Melissa. NOTHING It is as if thet were not even made.
By the way, why would DN want credibility from "confessed cheats".
Because, you are the people who are not knowledgeable. Daniel only has
credibility with you small players who play tournaments and on line.
To the "money players" Daniel is a JOKE.
How would you know this if you were not a money player? Also, Daniel
states a story I told about Men the Master about 5 or 6 years ago.
Daniel wasn't even playing poker here yet. How could he have any
knowledge if the story was true or not. I will print his e mails and
then he can answer them. See if you believe his answers.
You put your trust in the WRONG PEOPLE.
madk...@aol.comsucks (MadKarma3) wrote in message news:<20020118163725...@mb-cu.aol.com>...
GCA
garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu (Gary Carson) wrote in message news:<3c48aaae...@news.mindspring.com>...
MadKarma3
>credibility with you small players who play tournaments and on line.
>To the "money players" Daniel is a JOKE.
Then why am I only laughing at you? I was not sticking up for Daniel. I don't
know Daniel and have never spoken to nor met him. I don't know jack about him
other than what I've read here. I cannot tell who is right or wrong here.
The problem is that I abhor your tactics to get what you want. Using him in
this fashion, to further your grudge with Doyle, is not becoming of a
professional "agency."
It makes it clear that you aren't doing this for the best interest of poker,
but only to further grudges and in some way profit from the plunder of others.
I guess thats to be expected from an admitted cheat. Its the only way you
know. Its also why people don't care/believe you. You pull these bullshit,
8yr old tactics to "prove" yourself.
Again, this isn't anything you're hearing for the first time. Its probably
senseless to rehash this another time. Moving on...
>I will print his e mails and
>then he can answer them. See if you believe his answers.
>
>You put your trust in the WRONG PEOPLE.
Printing private emails without consent or threatening to post them as the case
was, again, isn't a very smart way for a professional agency starved for
credibility to act.
Why should anyone trust you more than Daniel? Why should rgp trust you period?
Atleast DN isn't going around printing private emails and blackmailing others.
Even if DN has faultured along the way, atleast I can respect his efforts
somewhat. By doing things in such a childish way, you are losing more respect
than you are gaining...
GCA
thing, trying to expose the corruption and cheating that goes on in
high stakes poker and tournaments. You may think you are laughing at
me, but how would you expose the corruption in high stakes poker and
tournaments? You are just uneducated in this area. Just for your sake,
I shall state "if it exists".
Is it better for it to keep going on without any thing being done.
Daniel has e mailed me many times. Now he come out publicly and states
I AM A LIAR. Well, I think the e mails I have will shed a new light on
who is lying. Always better to view all the evidence before giving a
VERDICT.
madk...@aol.comsucks (MadKarma3) wrote in message news:<20020120022639...@mb-dh.aol.com>...
Quang Le
"Daniel Negreanu" <kidp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7220404a.02011...@posting.google.com...
> "Quang Le" <q...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<xeX18.5865$HS4.1...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>...
> >
> > You may be a world class poker player but a small village child in life.
> > Under the pressure that GCA exposed your mail, you came back and
declared
> > Doyle is clean as blank sheet. Apology and excuse won't cut it when you
try
> > touch people reputation.
>
> Again, I never once stated on rgp that I thought Doyle was a
> dishonest poker player. Never.
It is true. But you did say in private at least one or more time. I don't
know which way is worse for Doyle. But I suggest you shouldn't ask him for a
loan anytime soon.
>
> > You was the one that sling mud around and wonder why your hand is dirty.
> > From your and GCA posts we assumed that you did ask GCA: "I heard that
Doyle
> > is a cheat and I believe it. Can you send me some stories?"
>
> Something like that. I was curious to find out what they knew, or
> what they thought they knew. It's become clear that they know a whole
> lot about the past, and absolutely nothing about the present. They
> have told the same stories over and over on rgp, and yet have proven
> nothing at all about their claims regarding present day poker.
>
> They didn't but
> > they used your mail as a proof that more people believe Doyle cheating.
>
> How in the world is my e-mail proof that 'more people believe Doyle
> cheating'? What are you talking about exactly? It was stupid of me
> to send that e-mail years ago. I screwed up, no question about it.
> So my e-mail is what Russ has to go on as far as proof of cheating is
> concerned? LOL.
They showed your mail to more legitimate people like "60 minutes" that Dan
N, a tournament pro and card player writer, believed that Doyle a cheat.
That works better for them than a mail from John Doe.
>
> > Now you repeated your fishing expedition with Men and got a positive
> > response from "credible" person and you declare it a fact. A fact is
where
> > you would have physical evidence or widely known that we can
independently
> > verify. You haven't shown a fact yet about Men. But that is ok you are
not
> > obligated to anyone but yourself.
>
> Ok, I stated publicly that Men told me to my face what happened in
> 1998 with him and Nhut Tran. I also saw it with my own eyes. I have
> two other witnesses that also saw that event take place, one of those
> who corroborated my story here on rgp. I'm more than willing to take
> a polygraph that what happened in 98', happened exactly as I said it
> did. Again, I guess this isn't physical evidence, but in terms of
> cheating at poker, what type of 'physical' evidence can one obtain? A
> tape recording? Well sorry. Unfortunately I wasn't wearing a wire
> back in 98'.
When you first told the Nhut Tran story many believed you, myself included.
We think you are not capable to fabricate a story like that. It turned out
your creative writing is better than we thought. But I still believe your
side of the story. I believe that stakers and skakees couldn't play each
other honestly in the same tournament because of conflict of interests.
Sklansky shared the same view and he used to be skaked so his experiences
was first hand. If John Juanda skaked you in a high-price tournament and
intend to bust you out just before money to prove that he is a honest player
but also kissed his $5000 skate goodbye then more power to him. But I and
many just don't believe that would ever happen. Our highest law enforcer of
the land had to recuse himself from Erron case because too many people think
human morality is flaw. Professional poker players' morals may be better
than that of hookers but not that high as Ashcroft's.
On the other hand, that story is corroborated by one of your friend who had
his own hatred of Men. It may be a fact to you but the jury won't be
convinced. I gave you an example of a fact that would be universally
accepted. That fact presented by GCA that cheaters can have access to
tournament chips before it starts. That were verified by Mike C. and Barry
S. and they did touch those chips physically. How well a cheat can use
those chips to win money is another story. But if I were a tourney pro I
would worry more about that than people softplay each other.
||
>
> Daniel Negreanu
> kidp...@hotmail.com
Quang Le
"GCA" <new...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:fe4b9b6.02011...@posting.google.com...
> Keep lying "small fry", because that is all you are. Kissing ass to
> get back into the "political good graces", something I have never and
> will never do. But, then again I have your e mails, don't I. They will
> make interesting reading for the public, since I will print them. You
> are a "liar" and a "coward". You are also broke, something that I am
> not. I may owe $500,000 or more in dedt, but I have a $100,000 in my
> pocket. The money I owe is on credit cards. I also have quite a lot of
> borrowing power, besides the earning power I have.
I know that you not good as math but $100000 - $500000 = -$400000 with a big
minus sign. With a lifetime balance sheet like that your earning power in
world class poker playing and cheating was not that impressive as you
thought. You should add credit card fraud and insurance fraud to your resume
soon.
I also advise to buy less expensive champagnes like Perrier Jouet or just
plain Chandon Moet. Most of readers whom you thought couldn't afford Dom
Perignon celebrated their lives fine with those and maintained much better
balance sheet.
||
GCA
the SEAL club. When people[memebers of my club, membership cost $10 a
year] played with me and were card carrying members, they drank to
their hearts content, I paid for all the alcohol. I used to buy the
casinos out of champagne. On one new years eve, just a few years ago,
I had been buying everyone Dom Perigon.
The casinos came with some acid described as champagne. I accepted a
glass, to soon learn it cost 50 cents. $4.00 champagne at 50 cents a
glass is quite a profit when the glasses are small.
The next week, I had them celebrate SEAL new year. I bought out the
"Good" Champagne in the casino and payed everyone $1.00 to have a
glass with me. This is the way I am.
I have no children, no family and no one to leave any money to. I have
more ability to make money than many could possibly imagine. Am I to
leave the money to the government? I would rather spend it and enjoy
myself. By the way. SEAL comes from my name. My name is Russell. So
they used to say, put Russ seal on the board, and I would bark. All
part of the show, and I was a good show man.
"Quang Le" <q...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3qF28.12298$HS4.6...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>...
Aug
> Daniel Negreanu, you are foremost a LIAR. Secondly, you are a coward.
> On the e mail, it states you "KNOW DOYLE IS A CHEAT". The e mail was
> written many months ago. Secondly, you have accused Men the Master of
> Cheating, yet haven't pursued the issue. Thus, it seems ok with you
> for this type of practice to continue. This makes you a LIAR when you
> state you were fishing. This was not the terminology on the e mail.
>
>
Since Carson seems to fancy himself a separator of shit from shinola,
perhaps he can bring the following into balance:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=5394e8cde69c0fe7dd0c6120422d50d6%40meganetnews.com
"GCA gives Daniel Negreanu a FIVE STAR RATING. We have never heard or
seen
anything negative about this "man". And believe me, he is a man. He is
in
the prime of life and now also goes against the "cheaters", no small
task.
He has also put his "hide" out on the line. Daniel, it won't be easy
sailing
from now on. As if it was easy sailing before. GCA won't be surprised
if you
are not writing for Card Player Rag anymore."
Gary Carson
Gary Carson
http:// garycarson.home.mindspring.com
GCA
the towel. Many things happen in a period of a few weeks
augste...@yahoo.com (Aug) wrote in message news:<e97d05e6.02012...@posting.google.com>...
Aug
Rating". I'm sure he must be devastated. Maybe you can give Carson
the honor.
new...@aol.com (GCA) wrote in message news:<fe4b9b6.02012...@posting.google.com>...
GCA
However, Negreanu through in the towel in the first round when
pressure was applied. You may think you know something, but Negreanu
has only been around for about four years, while Carson has been
around many. I haven't seen him give in yet. So far he isn't a
hyprocrite as far as I am concerned. Daniel, however, has his little
ass on the line. Lets see where he is in a few years.
Don't worry about me, I have more ability than you could ever imagine,
Augie Doggie.
Aug
> However, Negreanu through in the towel in the first round when
> pressure was applied. You may think you know something, but Negreanu
> has only been around for about four years, while Carson has been
> around many. I haven't seen him give in yet. So far he isn't a
> hyprocrite as far as I am concerned. Daniel, however, has his little
> ass on the line. Lets see where he is in a few years.
So, do you take away his "Five Star Rating" and give him a "Three Star
Rating", or take away all his stars?
>
> Don't worry about me, I have more ability than you could ever imagine,
> Augie Doggie.
>
I'm very worried about you Doggie Daddy. I do think that some lithium
might help.
GCA
POKER is. It is a "shit hole". It is so corrupt you wouldn't believe
it. I have lived in this world and have tried to expose it. You read
the propganda and believe it.
First off, let me explain one thing to you, I HAVE NEVER E MAILED ANY
ONE FIRST. People e mail me all the time. I respond to most. I ask for
nothing. If you think it is o.k. for Daniel Negreanu to accuse Men the
Master of cheating and have nothing be done about it, that is your
business. To me, it shows what kind of character he has.
I have given my life up to exposing this corruption in "poker" yet you
claim I am the person who has done the damage. Here there have been
accusations by many about Men the Master cheating and the matter isn't
even looked into. What is wrong with this picture? What is wrong with
you? How can people just go along with this?
Daniel Negreanu, just stated,"maybe these accusations" will slow Men
down from cheating as much. He also stated, "he still beats the
tournaments". Is this the character of a person with integrity? He
just states, I still win regardless whether Men "cheats" or not. Well,
Men just won Tournamnet Player of the Year. He had to do something
right. Some one had to get cheated.
But, I guess because Daniel still came out o.k., it is alright. By the
way, I have given up quite a bit to expose this. My home, my life and
any chance of peace. Meanwhile the people I have accused, continue to
rob, cheat, steal and plunder. But, as long as it doesn't bother you
it seems alright.
By the way, where do you get this opinion I am "blackmailing" Daniel
Negreanu? It seems he wanted something from me, and then lied about
it. To me and to "high stakes" poker he is a small fish. You are the
one who is ill-informed. Just because you see his picture and he
writes a column in a magazine which pays him a few dollars a month,
you seem to think he is a celebrity. He is just another "tournament
professional" scratching out a living, and not even a good one.
You have NO idea who I really am, or you might understand. Poker is
such a corrupt business it is sickening, but how would you know?
Russ G new...@aol.com John M
![Mark B [Diputsur]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjW1ukZesLHTvLryryGaLhoUTsW-4I5_N8bKNVoFKGU5T0OxggP6=s40-c)
Mark B [Diputsur]
Revamping one of the most disingenuous posts ever made here!
I would have had some fun with this one had I been around at the time.
Gary was on the right track here, Russ took most of the heat, and Daniel somehow weaseled his way out this unscathed! Was he forgiven? Hell, he ended up writing a chapter for SS2! Jenn must have been one hell of a lay to straighten out this clusterfuck!
Sidenote on SS2 TD chapter; one of the best chapters in the book! Well done, Danny! Big fan! :) But I digress... putting back on my Popinjay/Georgiev/Carson/Brunson/Brunson/Duke/Harman fan cap and for shits and giggles, I'm going to respond to Danny's OP as if it's still 2002. Book doesn't exist yet, he's still cupboy, OK, game on!
On Friday, January 18, 2002 at 6:44:10 AM UTC-5, Daniel Negreanu wrote:
> Ok, well I never wanted to get into this, but it's become obvious to
> me that it is an issue that should be addressed. I DID send an e-mail
> to GCA when they first came out on the rgp scene. I was curious. I
> was very interested to find out what they KNEW, or what they could
> PROVE concerning their allegations. They provided me with absolutely
> nothing. They provided me with a bunch of stories I'd already heard
> before.
> I was hoping to get some 'inside information' from them. Hopefully
> something concrete and solid.
This. Right here. Your own words, Danny. Why?
What did Doyle do to you that made you want something concrete and solid to hold against him?
Wasn't it enough that his son was backing you in tournaments around this time?
Isn't that how you became friends with Jenn H? He backed you, you made a FT, he couldn't stick around to watch it play out and sent his GF (Jenn) to watch over you. That sound about right?
You became good friends with Jenn (operative word, 'friends'; she considers you like a brother) and you want to repay Todd for all that by uncovering dirt on his father? Why? To break them up so you could fuck her? She's a little old for you, but I get it - she's a hottie! I'll get my popcorn, looking forward to your response.
> In order to get this type of
> information, I thought it might be a good idea to try to earn their
> trust.
> So, I told them exactly what they wanted to hear- period. That
> e-mail was no secret to anybody I knew. I told many people what my
> intentions were at the time.
Really? Did you tell your backer, Todd? If so, what did he have to say about it?
Did you tell your best friend, Jenn? She is close with Doyle, no? Doesn't he treat her like a daughter? Was she aware you were reaching out to get dirt on him?
Who Danny? Who did you tell besides your drug-dealing buddy Mike* who probably thought it was a great idea! Who did you tell, that supported you and told you to go for it? And are you claiming you only ever sent 1 email to Russ?
> Only recently, since the GCA posts about
> the e-mail, have I explained my intentions to Doyle.
Oh really? Your true intentions were stated clearly above; let's look at your own words again: "to get some 'inside information' from them. Hopefully something concrete and solid "
Is that what you told Doyle? Or did you lie and say you were trying to prove GCA was a sham and apologize for bringing his name up? My money is on the later, you lied your ass off! Didn't you?
> I haven't
> addressed Russ' posts about this, because I don't feel there is much
> to gain by discussing things with him.
You didn't address Russ' post because you were probably scared Todd would beat the shit out of you. You're now trying to smooth things over first by lying your ass off to the Brunson's and I'm certain Jenn is helping you, no?
> The GCA has REPEATEDLY mixed fact with fiction.
Exactly what you're doing now! Hello pot, meet kettle.
> Yes, I'm sure some
> of the things they've said about the past are factual, but when they
> speak of current events, it's beyond laughable. They know shit about
> the Bellagio, they know shit about the current state of tournament
> poker, and they know shit about the current status of the Commerce top
> section.
Nice sidetrack; You weren't interested in current events. Go back and read your email, dummy! YOU reached out to GCA looking for concrete evidence of dirt from Doyle's past! Why?
> I have stated publicly that Men Nguyen is a tournament cheat. I'm
> comfortable saying that, because I KNOW that to be fact. As for
> Doyle? I've heard rumours.
And you wanted facts so that you could publicly state something again? Is that it?
> Mostly crap from the GCA. There has
> never been one shred of evidence attaching Doyle to any unethical
> behaviour at a poker table.
Nice. Did Jenn write that line for you? :)
Let's talk about the 1972 WSOP. Does that count?
> I have absolutely no incentive to protect Doyle's image or
> reputation. We aren't exactly 'friends', nor are we enemies. I feel
> compelled to do what's right, because
His son backed you in tournaments?
Your best friend in the world looks to him as a father figure?
You know you fucked up and are trying to get out of an ass kicking?
> Doyle has suffered far too much
> negative attention at the hands of the GCA that is somewhat
> irrepairable.
LOL! Oh, yeah. ok. Blame Russ. You weren't trying to fuel any fires. Daniel, the innocent victim cares when others suffer! What about when Danny is the cause of the suffering? You going to apologize to Annie any time soon you POS?
Back to Doyle, had Russ given you the ammunition you wanted, would you still be apologizing for looking under that rock? I have a feeling we'd be looking at a very different post on RGP!
> Originally, when I heard about what was to come of the GCA's
> 'cleaning up of poker', I was truly excited. Then I found out who
> they actually were, and their motives behind doing what they are
> doing. That excitement quickly turned to disgust.
Know what's truly disgusting? Your attacks on Annie. Silly question, had it been Howard backing you on that FT and Annie on the rail keeping an eye on you (and mentoring you) instead of Jenn ... think you and Annie would have bonded the way you and Jenn did? I'll bet you could have patched things up. Hell, you'd probably be making posts on RGP calling Jenn a cunt! Wouldn't that be an interesting alternate universe! You wouldn't have had to ask Russ to go easy on Annie when he exposes the cheats though, nothing under that rock. Why were you so worried he might have something concrete on Jenn though? Hmm.
> There are grains of truth to 'some' of their posts, but they fill in
> the gaps with assumptions, and creative lies. Russ, is a truly
> twisted character...
As are you Danny, as evidenced by THIS fucking post!
>
> My apologies to Doyle in advance, as I'm sure Russ will likely post
> my e-mail to rgp.
Are you apologizing for what you said? Or teh fact that you got caught saying it?
> NOTHING in that e-mail reflects my true opinion of
> Doyle. If I felt that Doyle was a dishonest poker player in any way,
> I would have no problem saying so publicly.
ROFLMFAO! That email 100% reflects your true opinions! You just stated yourself IN THIS THREAD that you wanted confirmation! Be honest Danny!
> I put my neck out on the line exposing Men for the cheat that he is.
> I'm not 'afraid' of doing what it takes to try to help get poker
> cleaned up.
Agreed. You're actively going out of your way looking for dirt so that you can prove the old guard is full of cheats! We get it!
> However, by accusing Doyle Brunson, Russ is CLEARLY
> barking up the wrong tree.
Nice touch at the end, Jenn. I know you wrote that (and are reading this)** Replace 'Russ' with 'Danny' and repeat it to him 100 times until it sinks in.
This wasn't about Russ. It was about Danny.
Seriously, why are you friends with that asshole?
And Danny, when are you going to apologize to Annie? You're so way out of line you NEED your ass kicked. I hope Todd smears the shit right out of you! CUPBOY!
---
Fast forward back to 2020
Oh FUCK! CORONAVIRUS! TRUMP SAID WHAT? ONLINE POKER STILL ILLEGAL? FUCK!!!
The Brunson's let Danny off the hook, no ass kicking, no hard feelings... and today he's a superstar! Imagine if they didn't let it go so easy; If Jenn told him to go fuck himself and never staked him all those times he went busto; where would he be today? He's got a lot to be thankful for... and he still owes Annie an apology!
* Matusow was still a year away from being arrested, fuck facts ;)
** I know Jenn ISN'T reading this, but had I posted it in 2002 she would have definitely seen it.
popinjay
> Drinking + Poker + RGP archives = Look out RGP!
>
Dippy, this is so long ago I feel like I kinda want to forget it. I'm 18 years older now, that means I'm in my final part of my life. It's too late for me to dwell on these kinds of things. I want to enjoy my final years. I made my final payment in December on my own grave. I'm in no hurry, but I want to be prepared when I leave. I really have no one to help, everyone is dead. I'm Italian, and like the Mexicans, we have big families. Mine is gone. And no kids, no siblings, few friends now. Everyone is dead.
While reading this thread just now, I tried to click a link for razzo dot com. Dead link. I wish his family or someone had kept that link alive, or could bring it back alive. Razzo's death bothered me. Never got to meet him, but I feel like I did.
Mark B [Diputsur]
That part is a bummer, but I look at these old posts differently. When I see the GCA posts in the title at the top of the NG feed, it's almost like I am bringing them all back alive for a few moments. Razzo can't post himself anymore, he might not have liked last thread I chose to bump, but he wouldn't mind seeing his name pop through some of the other threads on occasion; To me, he's still here... but he can only come out to say hi when someone bumps one of the archived posts! If there is an afterlife, I know Russ is laughing his ass off - and waiting for me to fill the group with the rest of his GCA (re)posts! It's what he would be doing himself if he were still here!
There's a lot of good poker content back in those archives that warrants a bump and I find it comforting to see their names, and their words at the top of the forum again. If it bothers you, I'll stay away from bumping controversial topics - but then you have to give something in return... I want the secrets to becoming an advantage (video) poker player so I can rule those machines like you, risky, and Jason! Remember him? For a while, every time I opened facebook it seemed Jason had another jackpot posted on his wall! He worked for IGT for a while, I bet he programmed something into those machines to make them pay out! I've tried tapping hold to the tune of mary had a little lamb and jingle bells, but I can't get the machines to do anything other than eat my quarters! How do I get it to spit them back out at me?
:D
[insert poker content here]
Mossingen
news:616709f9-dca2-4eba...@googlegroups.com...
Keep'em coming.