CFV: humanities.philosophy.objectivism moderated
Jani Patokallio
FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2)
moderated group humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Newsgroups line:
humanities.philosophy.objectivism The ideas of Ayn Rand. (Moderated)
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC, 5 Jun 1996.
This vote is being conducted by a neutral third party. Questions
about the proposed group should be directed to the proponent.
Proponent: Jason Kuznicki <jt...@po.cwru.edu>
Votetaker: Jani Patokallio <jpat...@alpha.hut.fi>
RATIONALE: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Alt.philosophy.objectivism (a.p.o.), a currently existing group for
the discussion of the philosophy created by Ayn Rand and known as
Objectivism, has become nearly useless as a forum for discussion of
philosophy because of extremely high traffic of irrelevant crossposts,
spaming and flaming. Though they have been repeatedly asked to leave,
the perpetrators of these abuses continue to disturb a.p.o.
The problems of a.p.o. are particularly great because Objectivism is
in many respects an unconventional philosophy and thus tends to attract
posters who are extremely hostile to it, including trolls and the
perpetrators of interminable flamewars. These problems can be avoided
by those interested in Objectivism through the creation of a moderated
newsgroup.
Traffic on h.p.o. will be significant; previous proposals and the first
RFD were met with numerous e-mail and posted messages by individuals
who plan to post to the group regularly.
The proposal should in no way be considered an attempt to moderate or
replace a.p.o., whose status will not change with the creation of h.p.o.
The newsgroup's name follows established protocol with regard to
newsgroup creation. Objectivism is a philosophy; philosophy is a part
of the studies commonly called the humanities. Finally, the
humanities.* hierarchy is a legitimate and previously recognized
first-level hierarchy.
CHARTER: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Humanities.philosophy.objectivism shall exist for the purpose of fur-
thering discussion by Objectivists and those who admire Ayn Rand's
ideas. Those who disagree with these ideas may of course also post to
h.p.o. for the purposes of civilized debate and discussion of Object-
ivism. Any posters who persistently abuse their posting privileges
are subject to revocation of these privileges at the discretion of the
moderator (qv).
Discussion on h.p.o. may consist of attempts to support, elaborate,
apply, question, or refute the tenets of Objectivist philosophy on the
part of participants. For example, discussion on h.p.o. may include
but is in no way limited to the topics of Anarchism in relation to
Objectivism and the dispute between David Kelley and Leonard Peikoff
as it relates to Objectivist philosophy. Posts which request general
information about a particular topic of Objectivist philosophy or on
the availability of resources related to Objectivism are also welcome.
Every effort shall be made by the posters of h.p.o. to compile a thor-
ough text-only FAQ describing the moderation and posting policies of
h.p.o.
Crossposting shall not be permitted, excepting administrative posts
such as further RFDs, CFVs, and the FAQ. With the approval of the
administrator such material may be crossposted to news.announce.new-
groups, news.answers, news.groups, and other groups deemed necessary
by the moderator. Because a philosophy such as Objectivism has ap-
plications in numerous areas of human action, the actors in many of
which are not themselves directly concerned with Objectivism, discus-
sions that are crossposted often become irrelevant to one or the
other of the groups. This has been a major problem with a.p.o. in
the past.
Moderation Policy:
The newsgroup shall be automoderated; the automoderator shall be
overseen by a nonparticipant net administrator.
The automoderator shall automatically reject all articles that fall
into the following categories:
A) Articles that contain more than 80 characters per line;
B) Articles that are crossposted;
C) Encoded binary messages;
D) Messages containing more than 20 lines of text, 80% or
more of which is quoted material;
E) Articles authored by those that the moderator has
expelled from the group (see below).
The submitters of rejected articles shall be sent a copy of the FAQ
to inform them of the reason why their submissions were rejected.
The moderator of h.p.o. shall be Tim Skirvin <tski...@uiuc.edu>.
The alternate moderator of h.p.o. shall be Richard E. Depew
<r...@redpoll.mrfs.oh.us>. The moderators shall not post to
humanities.philosophy.objectivism except as administrative duties
require.
Commercial postings shall not be permitted; repeated posting of a
commercial nature shall be grounds for the banning of the submitter
from humanities.philosophy.objectivism at the discretion of the mod-
erator. The moderator is further authorized to cancel said postings
if and when they appear, forwarding a copy of the FAQ to the poster.
If a FAQ is not yet available, a copy of this charter shall be sent
instead.
Postings commonly acknowledged by the Usenet community to be "spam"
or similar forms of net-abuse shall not be permitted; the moderator
is authorized to cancel all such posts, inform the submitter of his
decision, and, if the abuse persists after an initial warning, ban
the submitter of the posts from the newsgroup.
The moderator may also cancel posts which are offtopic for the group.
For example, humanities.philosophy.objectivism excludes the discus-
sion of Neo-Tech, Zon Power and the publications and activities of
the Neo-Tech Publishing Company. Such material is off-topic for
humanities.philosophy.objectivism and repeated posts of this nature
shall result in the expulsion of the poster. The Automoderator may
also be programmed and reprogrammed as necessary to return the ex-
cluded postings to the sender, attatching a copy of the FAQ for h.p.o.
No specific individuals shall be excluded from h.p.o., save as their
behavior on the forum itself warrants.
The alternate shall succeed the moderator upon retirement. Should
the alternate be unwilling to do so, the moderator may choose an-
other impartial nonparticipant individual to fill his place.
END CHARTER.
MODERATOR INFO: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Moderator: tski...@uiuc.edu (Tim Skirvin)
Article submission address: tskirv...@math.uiuc.edu
Administrative contact address: tski...@uiuc.edu
END MODERATOR INFO.
HOW TO VOTE:
Follow these instructions *exactly*! Votes are counted by computer.
You should send E-MAIL (posts to a newsgroup are invalid) to:
Please do not assume that just replying to this message will work.
Check the address before you mail your vote. Your mail message
should contain one and only one of the following vote statements:
I vote YES on humanities.philosophy.objectivism
I vote NO on humanities.philosophy.objectivism
If your mail software does not indicate your real name (for example,
AOL does not), please also include the following statement on a separate
line and add your name after the colon.
Voter name:
You may also vote ABSTAIN (which does exactly that) or CANCEL (which
removes any earlier votes). ABSTAIN does not affect the final vote count
in any way but is listed, whereas CANCEL is not.
IMPORTANT VOTING PROCEDURE NOTES:
Standard Guidelines for voting apply. One person, one vote. Votes
must be mailed directly from the voter to the votetaker. Anonymous,
forwarded or proxy votes are not valid. Votes mailed by WWW/HTML/CGI
forms are considered to be anonymous votes.
Vote counting is automated. Failure to follow these directions may
mean that your vote does not get counted. If you do not receive an
acknowledgment of your vote within three days contact the votetaker
about the problem. It's your responsibility to make sure your vote
is registered correctly. Duplicate votes are resolved in favor of
the most recent valid vote. Addresses and votes of all voters will
be published in the final voting results post.
The purpose of a Usenet vote is to determine the genuine interest of
persons who would read a proposed newsgroup. Soliciting votes from
disinterested parties defeats this purpose. Please do not distribute
this CFV. If you must, direct people to the official CFV as posted
to news.announce.newgroups. Distributing pre-marked or otherwise
edited copies of this CFV is generally considered to be vote fraud.
When in doubt, ask the votetaker.
--
Jani Patokallio <jpat...@alpha.hut.fi>
Voting address: <vot...@hut.fi>
Brad Aisa
In article <8322001...@uunet.uu.net>,
Jani Patokallio <jpat...@alpha.hut.fi> wrote:
> FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2)
> moderated group humanities.philosophy.objectivism
VOTE FRAUD ALERT
Based on the fact that some key Neo-Tech are announcing they will be voting
YES on humanities.philosophy.objectivism, and given the recent
(particularly) bizarre behavior of Neo-Tech Publishing (claiming to have
engineered an anonymous opponent KOAH), and given the repeated harrassment
by NT adherents of regular apo posters and bizarre attempts to discredit
them, I have concluded that there is a possible route of vote fraud to be
on guard for.
Such a campaign would take the form of forged ballots on the part of
regular contributors to apo, who have been spearheading the creation of
HPO.
I wish to state for the record, that I have voted once, and once only, do
not have any other Internet accounts, and will not be issuing any
additional ballots. My ballot was issued with the following timestamp:
Sun, 19 May 96 19:24:05 GMT
A ballot (seeming) to issue from my account or host, with any other
timestamp, was not issued by me, and I hereby repudiate any such ballots.
I would reccomend that those voting, copy themselves via e-mail, so they
can record and perhaps publish the timestamp and/or messageID of their
ballot.
--
Brad Aisa <ba...@hookup.net> web: http://www.hookup.net/~baisa/
Please vote YES on newsgroup humanities.philosophy.objectivism!
"The highest responsibility of philosophers is to serve as the
guardians and integrators of human knowledge." -- Ayn Rand
Nicholas Rich
An attempt to turn attention away from the vote fraud already perpetuated by
Betsy, and proven by me? I already received an email from the vote taker who
told me that a "naughty, naughty" message was sent to Betsy.
At any rate, this just demonstrates how totally clueless you are as to what
NT is up to.
Forging ballots for or against hpo (I voted yes, 1 time, as well)... What a
tremendous and pointless waste of time--as well as dishonest.
In article <4nnt8v$e...@loki.tor.hookup.net>, ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa)
wrote:
>In article <8322001...@uunet.uu.net>,
> Jani Patokallio <jpat...@alpha.hut.fi> wrote:
>> FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2)
>> moderated group humanities.philosophy.objectivism
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nicholas Rich Sachs, Savage & Noble http://www.ss-n.com
nr...@ss-n.com Business Financial Consultants a...@ss-n.com
We settle and resolve problems between businesses including lawsuits
judgments, liens, payables receivables--through Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR), out-of-court and always on a *results-only* basis.
Earn substantial referral fees. Or, become an affiliate and learn
how to cash in on ADR and earn a 6 figure income working from home.
http://www.ss-n.com/referral.html http://www.ss-n.com/affiliat.html
Steve Reed
ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa) writes:
>VOTE FRAUD ALERT
>Based on the fact that some key Neo-Tech are announcing they will be
>voting YES on humanities.philosophy.objectivism, and given the recent
>(particularly) bizarre behavior of Neo-Tech Publishing (claiming to have
>engineered an anonymous opponent KOAH), and given the repeated harrassment
>by NT adherents of regular apo posters and bizarre attempts to discredit
>them, I have concluded that there is a possible route of vote fraud to be
>on guard for.
Do bring this up, Brad, if you see it -- but specifics would be helpful, not
simply an overgeneralized fear of such fraud. Statements like the above just
add bombast.
I've provided at least one concrete example regarding YES votes (the appeals
for votes on two IRC channels, by giving voting steps and not encouraging
that one read the CFV). If you have any actual flouting of rules to report in
other respects, do so.
But as to one's own vote, no one should waste bandwidth making proclamations
about it here. Send notes about potential irregularities to the votetaker at
jpat...@alpha.hut.fi so that something specific can be done about them.
One can change or cancel one's own vote if something irregular is suspected,
or even if it isn't. See the CFV for details. But let's not simply flood the
volunteer votetaker with re-votes out of paranoia over such fraud. Examples
first, please.
§ § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § §
Steve Reed ... jsr...@interaccess.com
Piece of Sky Consulting, Chicago
Windows assistance and fine type crafting
Guy Macon
In article <4nnt8v$e...@loki.tor.hookup.net>, ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa) says:
>
>I would reccomend that those voting, copy themselves via e-mail, so they
>can record and perhaps publish the timestamp and/or messageID of their
>ballot.
>
I have only voted on a CFV once, a long time ago, but I got an email
confirming my vote. Is this normal?
I sure would have been suspicious if I recieved more than one such email...
Brad Aisa
nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
>Forging ballots for or against hpo (I voted yes, 1 time, as well)... What
>a tremendous and pointless waste of time--as well as dishonest.
But of course manufacturing an enemy (KOAH) and engaging in long heated
arguments and battles with it is *not* "a trememendous and pointless waste
of time -- as well as dishonest"??? And of course that is even assuming
this absurd story is true -- if not, then making such a ridiculous claim is
*not* "a trememendous and pointless waste of time -- as well as
dishonest"???
Brad Aisa
>volunteer votetaker with re-votes out of paranoia over such fraud.
>Examples first, please.
I did not suggest sending extraneous traffic to the votetaker.
As for extraneous traffic here, well of course this will not be a problem
for Mr. Reed -- he can simply use his killfile to eliminate it (as he has
claimed is the solution to unwanted traffic).
As for "examples" -- two points:
1) The list of votes is not published until *after* the ballot closes -- I
am simply cautioning for something people can do ahead of time
2) As for examples of NT/Zon dishonesty -- I refer you to the KOAH
nonsense.
Brad Aisa
In article <4nosm3$4...@news01.deltanet.com>,
Ah -- very good point.
You really have to have a long-term appreciation of how loony Neo-Tech/Zon
is, and how strident and outright weird are its proponents, to understand
my concerns about their conduct. Any group that can inflate a book about
how to cheat at poker into an alleged Philosophy of the Universe ought to
be viewed with a healthy measure of suspicion.
Nicholas Rich
I can grant you that it may appear that way right now. But the final hand
has not yet been laid down. That will only happen upon publication of the
"Flame Book"--what is sure to be a market success--and probably targetted to
an internet market as well.
I would imagine that the book will also raise a great deal of interest in
Rand as well.
BTW, KOAH was not "manufactued." He is a genuine critic who operates under
his own motivations. It was, however, an NTP editor who found him and got
him on the "scent."
Incidently, his value has not been in his continual rants--reality being
reality, but rather the exposing of certain dishonesties and compromises
among the apo "elite," Tony and Betsy primarily, who cheered him on as their
mouthpiece. This, in spite of the fact that he issued dozens of posts
nihilistically attacking Ayn Rand and the values she produced, expressed
desires for promiscous sex, and said there are circumstances where he would
murder thoudands of innocent people-- even "destroy the entire universe if
necessary."
I note that you were not one of these people, and as E-Team members go, even
though I think you can be a real ass sometimes, I have found you to be
consistent and honest. And I think you are also one of the few "leaders" who
actually produces values.
Say what you will about us Brad. The fact remains that of all your
"enemies," we are the only one's who have done nothing but uphold Rand and
the values she produced. You cannot cite a single instance where any of us
have attacked a single tenet of Objectivism.
There ought to be a clue for you in there somewhere.
In article <4nqc5e$t...@loki.tor.hookup.net>, ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa)
wrote:
>nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
>
>>Forging ballots for or against hpo (I voted yes, 1 time, as well)... What
>>a tremendous and pointless waste of time--as well as dishonest.
>
>But of course manufacturing an enemy (KOAH) and engaging in long heated
>arguments and battles with it is *not* "a trememendous and pointless waste
>of time -- as well as dishonest"??? And of course that is even assuming
>this absurd story is true -- if not, then making such a ridiculous claim is
> *not* "a trememendous and pointless waste of time -- as well as
>dishonest"???
>
>--
>Brad Aisa <ba...@hookup.net> web: http://www.hookup.net/~baisa/
>
>Please vote YES on newsgroup humanities.philosophy.objectivism!
>
>"The highest responsibility of philosophers is to serve as the
>guardians and integrators of human knowledge." -- Ayn Rand
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nicholas Rich
In article <4nqchu$t...@loki.tor.hookup.net>, ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa) wrote:
>In article <4nosm3$4...@news01.deltanet.com>,
> guym...@deltanet.com (Guy Macon) wrote:
>>In article <4nnt8v$e...@loki.tor.hookup.net>, ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa)
>says:
>>>
>>>I would reccomend that those voting, copy themselves via e-mail, so they
>>>can record and perhaps publish the timestamp and/or messageID of their
>>>ballot.
>>>
>>
>>I have only voted on a CFV once, a long time ago, but I got an email
>>confirming my vote. Is this normal?
>>
>>I sure would have been suspicious if I recieved more than one such
>email...
>
>Ah -- very good point.
>
>You really have to have a long-term appreciation of how loony Neo-Tech/Zon
>is, and how strident and outright weird are its proponents, to understand
>my concerns about their conduct. Any group that can inflate a book about
>how to cheat at poker into an alleged Philosophy of the Universe ought to
>be viewed with a healthy measure of suspicion.
From Page VI of the introduction to "The Advanced Concepts of Poker:"
"The 'Advanced Concepts of Poker' are objective and realistic. Many involve
deception. Some are ruthless. A few are immoral*. Know them and be wiser.
Apply them and get rich**.
* None of the 'Advanced Concepts of Poker' employ cheating, but a few are
immoral because they involve deception outside of the poker game. The good
player, however, does not need to use a single immoral concept to achieve
his goals. So why include immoral concepts? This book is a definitive
treatment of poker and, therefore, all concepts are included. Also by
identifying the immoral concepts, the reader can recognize them and take
defensive measures when such concepts are used against him.
** This book identifies the true nature of winning poker as a highly
profitable but a time-consuming nonproductive activity that requires
bringing out the worst in one's opponents. In certain cases, therefore,
poker can work against the good player's self-esteem and happiness no matter
how much he wins."
Duped again, Brady Boy. If you actually read the book, you'd see that it was
a giant and powerful metaphor for what's wrong with our irrational
civilization.
I'm sending this to you via email to be sure you see it. I do have enough
respect for you that I do not think you would intentionally continue to
missrepesent what a book was about, once your error was pointed out. It is
not about how to cheat at poker.
Bruce Baugh
>You really have to have a long-term appreciation of how loony Neo-Tech/Zon
>is, and how strident and outright weird are its proponents, to understand
>my concerns about their conduct.
I can't speak for others, Brad, but in the course of just a few weeks'
posting to news.groups, the Neo-Tech and Zon folks convinced _me_ that
they're just full of topics that are rightly moderated away. The habit
of long canned posts not actually relevant to anything at hand is a
winningly kooky trait.
I began the exchange, people may recall, highly concerned about certain
elements of the charter. Neo-Tech advocates convinced me of the
necessity for each by their own behavior.
Bruce Baugh <*> br...@aracnet.com <*> http://www.aracnet.com/~bruce
See my Web pages for
New science fiction by Steve Stirling and George Alec Effing er
Christlib, the mailing list for Christian and libertarian concerns
Daedalus Games, makers of Shadowfist and Feng Shui
talisman
>BTW, KOAH was not "manufactued." He is a genuine critic who operates under
>his own motivations. It was, however, an NTP editor who found him and got
>him on the "scent."
But you said he was "created and propogated". "Created" seems much closer
(almost synonymous) to "manufactured" (and distributed) than it does to "found
and got him on the scent".
Sounds like you were lying.
Michael McCormick
_ELAN_
Bruce Baugh
>I can grant you that it may appear that way right now. But the final hand
>has not yet been laid down. That will only happen upon publication of the
>"Flame Book"--what is sure to be a market success--and probably targetted to
>an internet market as well.
If I had to pick a single most annoying Neo-Tech feature, the rhetorical
strategy used here might well be it. We get lots of hints about The Next
Big Thing, explanations of how wonderful it'll be, the whole deal. And
then it shows up and it's the same old rants, only longer. Nothing new
or worthwhile ever emerges in these.
Nicholas, the audience of news.groups doesn't care about the truth or
falsehood of your claims. We do not support a group because we believe
its proponents views are true, nor oppose it because we think they're
false. On the other hand, we cast an ever-more-prejudicial eye on
arguments which try to get us to oppose a group because its proponents
are Bad People.
There's a brief FAQ that gets posted here and in news.announce.newgroups
every couple of weeks, written by Dave Lawrence, on how to create a good
proposal. It's also an excellent guideline to how to argument for or
against a group. I recommend reading it.
Nicholas Rich
In article <4o26nt$3hg...@marid.friedlander-bey.org>, br...@aracnet.com (Bruce Baugh) wrote:
>In article <4nqmei$b...@nntp1.best.com>, nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
>
>>I can grant you that it may appear that way right now. But the final hand
>>has not yet been laid down. That will only happen upon publication of the
>>"Flame Book"--what is sure to be a market success--and probably targetted to
>>an internet market as well.
>
>If I had to pick a single most annoying Neo-Tech feature, the rhetorical
>strategy used here might well be it. We get lots of hints about The Next
>Big Thing, explanations of how wonderful it'll be, the whole deal. And
>then it shows up and it's the same old rants, only longer. Nothing new
>or worthwhile ever emerges in these.
Yeah, but it works like a son-of-a-bitch.
I mean...look at you...here you are all annoyed and bothered, yet you still
tale time to read the posts and reply.
Nicholas Rich
http://www.ss-n.com
Justice, when it comes, is often mistaken for the enemy.
This is the root of all dishonesty. -me
Bruce Baugh
>Yeah, but it works like a son-of-a-bitch.
>I mean...look at you...here you are all annoyed and bothered, yet you still
>tale time to read the posts and reply.
Yes, but I'm also voting against you.
If you look back over the thread, you'll find that I was initially
strongly opposed to some of the language in the charter. It's the
discussion on news.groups that has persuaded me to the contrary. And I
feel quite sure that there are others who share my view who simply
aren't posting about it.
So yes, your strategy works if you aim to persuade uncommitted voters to
support the creation of a newsgroup that will, among other things,
exclude most of what you want to post about. Unless you're a masochist,
I presume that this was not your goal.
Nicholas Rich
Uh, Bruce...you need to pay attention. All of the NT posters (to my
knowledge) have supported the formation of hpo from the beginning. I and
several others that I am aware of have already voted YES.
Can you figure out why?
In article <4o3iah$210...@marid.friedlander-bey.org>, br...@aracnet.com
Nicholas Rich
Pee Kitty
Bruce Baugh (br...@aracnet.com) wrote:
: In article <4o2fnr$s...@nntp1.best.com>, nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
: >Yeah, but it works like a son-of-a-bitch.
: >I mean...look at you...here you are all annoyed and bothered, yet you still
: >tale time to read the posts and reply.
: Yes, but I'm also voting against you.
You're voting NO? I thought you wanted hpo to be formed?
--
Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian
Meow!
* Are you abnormal? Then you are probably BETTER than most people! *
* ETERNAL SALVATION OR TRIPLE YOUR MONEY BACK! For info send $1 to *
* The Church of the SubGenius / P. O. Box 140306 / Dallas, TX 75214 *
* -= Visit alt.slack =- *
* FREE SUBGENIUS STUFF! FTP to ftp.netcom.com and cd /pub/pk/pkitty *
Lionell Griffith
nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) wrote:
>In article <4nqchu$t...@loki.tor.hookup.net>, ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa) wrote:
>>In article <4nosm3$4...@news01.deltanet.com>,
>> guym...@deltanet.com (Guy Macon) wrote:
>>>In article <4nnt8v$e...@loki.tor.hookup.net>, ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa)
>>says:
>>>>
>>>>I would reccomend that those voting, copy themselves via e-mail, so they
>>>>can record and perhaps publish the timestamp and/or messageID of their
>>>>ballot.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I have only voted on a CFV once, a long time ago, but I got an email
>>>confirming my vote. Is this normal?
>>>
>>>I sure would have been suspicious if I recieved more than one such
>>email...
>>
>>Ah -- very good point.
>>
>>You really have to have a long-term appreciation of how loony Neo-Tech/Zon
>>is, and how strident and outright weird are its proponents, to understand
>>my concerns about their conduct. Any group that can inflate a book about
>>how to cheat at poker into an alleged Philosophy of the Universe ought to
>>be viewed with a healthy measure of suspicion.
>From Page VI of the introduction to "The Advanced Concepts of Poker:"
>"The 'Advanced Concepts of Poker' are objective and realistic. Many involve
>deception. Some are ruthless. A few are immoral*. Know them and be wiser.
>Apply them and get rich**.
>* None of the 'Advanced Concepts of Poker' employ cheating, but a few are
>immoral because they involve deception outside of the poker game. The good
>player, however, does not need to use a single immoral concept to achieve
>his goals. So why include immoral concepts? This book is a definitive
>treatment of poker and, therefore, all concepts are included. Also by
>identifying the immoral concepts, the reader can recognize them and take
>defensive measures when such concepts are used against him.
>** This book identifies the true nature of winning poker as a highly
>profitable but a time-consuming nonproductive activity that requires
>bringing out the worst in one's opponents. In certain cases, therefore,
>poker can work against the good player's self-esteem and happiness no matter
>how much he wins."
Profit comes from CREATION of value. Gambling in all of its forms is
not a value creating activity. It is at best only a means of transfer
of wealth. In fact, it is generally a less than a zero sum game. If
you are not a producer, you do not create wealth. There can be no
profit. There can be only a net loss.
>Duped again, Brady Boy. If you actually read the book, you'd see that it was
>a giant and powerful metaphor for what's wrong with our irrational
>civilization.
A hyper-inflated vision of a fundamentally impoverished idea.
>I'm sending this to you via email to be sure you see it. I do have enough
>respect for you that I do not think you would intentionally continue to
>missrepesent what a book was about, once your error was pointed out. It is
>not about how to cheat at poker.
It may not be specificaly about how to cheat a poker. Yet it is
about how to cheat at gaining wealth. By your own words, it is a
discussion of how to gain wealth and be non-productive at the same
time. That is cheating at its core. It is an expression of
the wish to have the effect without the effort of initiating
the cause.
The con-game nature of Neo-Tech continues to be exposed.