Scotty Nguyen caught cheating?
Big Dave
Scotty Nguyen being caught with thousands of extra tourney chips in his
hotel room, within the last few months. No mention of where, or any real
details. Any truth to this??
I want to stress I am making NO accusations!! Just curious. Strictly 2nd
or 3rd hand stuff.
Thanks,
In Big Dave we trust.
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Newgca
Truth or proof? Obviously their is truth to this, but no proof. I have stated
this 2+ years ago as happening all of the time, yet skeptics dismiss this.
Imagine the damage to poker tournaments if this was exposed?
How many would suffer and how many would lose untold millions from bad
publicity. For as I have stated, once one of them goes, the rest won't be far
behind.
Russ Georgiev
Newgca
>this 2+ years ago as happening all of the time, yet skeptics dismiss this.
So I am not misunderstood, I know Scotty has done this, I just don't know if it
was at this time or event. Same as I know Men the Master has done this, and
myself. If your asking me to remember the times and places, you're out of luck,
for it was a normal course of events.
Russ Georgiev
Patrick B. OMalley
Scotty's name got mixed in wrongly. Not sure but the incident sounds the same.
Rob 7ManUtd
that someone could not have "extra" tournament chips in his hotel room?
La Ciclon
Men & Scotty play on the same bankroll.
La Ciclon
"Patrick B. OMalley" <pbo...@aol.comoinkoink> wrote in message
news:20030622232944...@mb-m25.aol.com...
Patrick B. OMalley
basis.
>Subject: Re: Scotty Nguyen caught cheating?
>From: "La Ciclon" p0we...@suckspam.excite.c0m
>Date: 6/22/2003 9:10 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <K4vJa.108209$MJ5.49186@fed1read03>
Newgca
>that someone could not have "extra" tournament chips in his hotel room?
NO, but they tell you they do.
Newgca
>
>La Ciclon
Kind of like the game at Hustler.
La Ciclon
La Ciclon
"Patrick B. OMalley" <pbo...@aol.comoinkoink> wrote in message
news:20030623001302...@mb-m25.aol.com...
La Ciclon
WSOP.
LC
"Newgca" <new...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030623001921...@mb-m24.aol.com...
greatbrit
> ...
sounds like a Nguyen Nguyen arrangement.
Newgca
>basis.
What if the same person/s was backing both of them?
La Ciclon
news:3EF685...@pacbell.net...
> sounds like a Nguyen Nguyen arrangement.
LOL
Patrick B. OMalley
To see how up to date you are. You know any information about a huge new
backer for all the players ? LA area ? Just curious to see how up to date you
are.
jamesshoerepair82&LEX
> You sure ? From what I've seen I would bet this isn't the case on a full time
> basis.
>
>
he's sure.....u lose
> >Subject: Re: Scotty Nguyen caught cheating?
> >From: "La Ciclon" p0we...@suckspam.excite.c0m
> >Date: 6/22/2003 9:10 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <K4vJa.108209$MJ5.49186@fed1read03>
> >
> >*hint*
> >
> >Men & Scotty play on the same bankroll.
> >
> >La Ciclon
> >
> >
> >"Patrick B. OMalley" <pbo...@aol.comoinkoink> wrote in message
> >news:20030622232944...@mb-m25.aol.com...
> >> Sounds like you may have heard something regarding the Men Nguyen
> >incident, and
> >> Scotty's name got mixed in wrongly. Not sure but the incident sounds the
> >same.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
_________________________________________________________________
Vince lepore
> > Any truth to this??
>
> Truth or proof? Obviously their is truth to this, but no proof.
You are not only an idiot but an asshole also. No proof! O.K so let's
just hang the bastard on your word. You stink.
Vince
Patrick B. OMalley
>Subject: Re: Scotty Nguyen caught cheating?
>From: "jamesshoerepair82&LEX" anon...@hotmail.com
>Date: 6/22/2003 11:10 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3ef699bb$0$75809$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>
Newgca
Oink Oink
Newgca
>WSOP.
>
>LC
I should write a post about scamming Chinese Poker.
Daniel Negreanu
> *hint*
>
> Men & Scotty play on the same bankroll.
>
> La Ciclon
>
Where in the world did you come up with this one? There is absolutely
no truth to that whatsoever. The two are friends, but rarely if even
doing any "business" together.
Daniel Negreanu
www.fullcontactpoker.com
Daniel Negreanu
> I know for a FACT this is true - albeit maybe not all the time.
If you mean Men has taken pieces of Scotty in tournaments before than
yes. As far as them sharing a bankroll?? What the?? Are you serious?
Do you really believe that's true? Normally where there is smoke there is
fire, but in this case there is a whole lot of smoke, but there ain't no
fire.
Daniel Negreanu
www.fullcontactpoker.com
_________________________________________________________________
Patrick B. OMalley
But my guess was zero too.
>Subject: Re: Scotty Nguyen caught cheating?
>From: "Daniel Negreanu" anon...@hotmail.com
>Date: 6/23/2003 12:13 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3ef6a87d$0$75803$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>
Robert Ladd
no proof. Yet YOU have no proof that he's lying, or that he's even wrong.
What would that make you?
Robert Ladd
"Vince lepore" <lepo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bbdd5c2d.03062...@posting.google.com...
Peg Smith
That reminds me, where the heck is GROAN these days?
Peg
Newgca
>no truth to that whatsoever. The two are friends, but rarely if even
>doing any "business" together.
>
>Daniel Negreanu
>www.fullcontactpoker.com
How would you know this? Did they tell you this? Did one of them tell you this?
Did you observe this? Care to explain what you observed? I know for a fact they
have cheated together, because I was there, whether you believe it or not. I'm
not saying they cheat every time together or that they cheat all the time. I'm
saying they have cheated together and separately, with others. I was there, I
saw and was indirectly a part of the cheating.
Russ Georgiev
Andrei Herasimchuk
until proven guilty anymore these days. That's so passe.
Andrei
"Robert Ladd" <rl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:M5yJa.165210$eJ2.92814@fed1read07...
Newgca
>no truth to that whatsoever. The two are friends, but rarely if even
>doing any "business" together.
>
>Daniel Negreanu
>www.fullcontactpoker.com
Aren't you the person that has called Men the Master a cheater?
Russ Georgiev
Newgca
>But my guess was zero too.
What a porker OINK OINK OINK
Patrick B. OMalley
I think he said that it was for sure that they weren't sharing bankrolls. I
might be wrong though.
PBO
>Subject: Re: Scotty Nguyen caught cheating?
>From: new...@aol.com (Newgca)
>Date: 6/23/2003 1:34 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <20030623043417...@mb-m13.aol.com>
Patrick B. OMalley
>Subject: Re: Scotty Nguyen caught cheating?
>From: new...@aol.com (Newgca)
>Date: 6/23/2003 1:36 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <20030623043620...@mb-m13.aol.com>
CSI Minneapolis
No they do not. Men has his own horses and Scotty is not one of them....you
need better info sir.
PA
"La Ciclon" <p0we...@suckspam.excite.c0m> wrote in message
news:K4vJa.108209$MJ5.49186@fed1read03...
> *hint*
>
> Men & Scotty play on the same bankroll.
>
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>Maybe you should become a lawyer, Robert. I hear no one believes in innocent
>until proven guilty anymore these days. That's so passe.
>
>Andrei
The real issue here is that the proof is on the accuser, not on
the accused to "prove he didn't do it".
Example: I accuse Andrei of something scurrilous. You deny it.
Then I come on the newsgroup and say "there's no proof that it isn't
true". See the screwed up the logic involved here?
La Ciclon
I heard out of their own mouths, albeit in Vietnamese (suprise! I know
enough of the speaking language to get by).
If you REALLY wanna know what's going on when they talk - take Vietnamese I,
II and III in college like I was smart enough to do.
"danh t? c?a tôi ti?n b?c." (Play My Money).
La Ciclon
"Daniel Negreanu" <anon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ef6a940$0$11838$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
ROWDY3959
Robert Ladd
the poker industry and it's media and the control possessed by those that
possibly could be corrupt with no one to answer to, no one to investigate,
and no way to prove it if they are corrupt, then any information shared with
us should be welcome. And since RGP is the only place where that
information can get out to us, we have to allow for the bad with the good.
I find it strange that anyone would not want to hear information that might
save them from being cheated or scammed. No one is forced to believe any or
all of the information that comes on RGP. Thinking people will evaluate
the messages and decide whether it's right or wrong. I honestly find it
amazing when people don't want to receive information that can help or
protect them.
Naturally, we all have to look at the information and evaluate whether we
believe the source, the source of the source, etc., ignore it, or prove that
it's wrong. Somewhat the same thing a jury does in a court of law. More to
the point, we actually have a pseudo court of law. Charges are made and the
jury (RGP) has the opportunity to believe it, add to it, or debunk it. We
the participants of RGP are also the judges, jury, attorneys, accusers,
defendants, witnesses for the accusers, witnesses for the defense, and
public sitting in the seats watching the whole thing unfold.
So when someone makes an accusation, and someone else calls him a liar and a
vulgar name for making that statement, I think I have the right, no actually
the duty, as a witness in this Court of RGP to point out that since he
couldn't possible know that the accuser is a liar, or even just wrong, then
that person would have to be as bad or worse than the person he accused of
being a liar.
Robert Ladd
"Andrei Herasimchuk" <aheras...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:UYyJa.868$Wz1.90...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
OrangeSFO
> > Any truth to this??
>
> this 2+ years ago as happening all of the time, yet skeptics dismiss this.
> Russ Georgiev
Obviously? OBVIOUSLY??
You miserable attention-sucking cockroach. Put up some proof or shut
up. WHO appointed you the "truth squad." All you do is point your
slimy finger. And your motivation is not truth or revelation. It's
pure narcissism.
If you've got the goods, put them up.
You're the second-coming of Joe McCarthy.
Robert Ladd
whitewashed information, or misinformation that could be detrimental to our
financial health.
I'd rather suffer through you and Badger calling me an evil, corrupted, paid
off stooge for Russ, than to let the alternative exist where Russ has no
voice, or is barraged with so many posts that he can't answer them all and
then have you point out that "he's suddenly silent on this one", or have you
twist his words to mean something that he didn't say and then use your own
version of his words to prove that he lied.
Certainly Russ has been wrong in the past and probably will be in the
future. Whether his mistakes were poor judgment, bad second hand
information, or plain outright lies, we'll all have to judge that for
ourselves. But we've also been given information that, without Russ, we'd
never have known. We've received a secondary benefit of Russ' posts, and
that is other people that would have kept quiet rather than face the flames
are standing up and saying what they know, what they've seen or what they
believe. Again, some of this may be wrong information, but I'd rather have
to make the decision whether the information given to me is wrong than be
stuck with the alternative of no information or industry propaganda.
Robert Ladd
"Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips" <Larr...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3ef6fd89...@news.cis.dfn.de...
Vince lepore
> RGP is a place to share information.
Roger that. Information and questionioning go hand and hand.
> I find it strange that anyone would not want to hear information that might
> save them from being cheated or scammed.
So wouls I. Please point to the INFORMATION your scumbag hereo gave
us concerning Scotty Nguyen? Then let's discuss the information. you
obviously did not read his information.
> No one is forced to believe any or
> all of the information that comes on RGP. Thinking people will evaluate
> the messages and decide whether it's right or wrong.
You are not serious are you? People can evalute information that
calls Scotty Nguyen a cheat and that make a decision whether it's
right or wrong? That sounds like an idiotic statement Russ G. would
make.
> Naturally, we all have to look at the information and evaluate whether we
> believe the source, the source of the source, etc., ignore it, or prove that
> it's wrong.
Prove it's wrong? No! Look at the source? Yes! Russ is an admitted
cheat and scammer> Yet you take his word that someone else is a cheat
just because he says so. What am I missing?
> So when someone makes an accusation, and someone else calls him a liar and a
> vulgar name for making that statement, I think I have the right, no actually
> the duty, as a witness in this Court of RGP to point out that since he
> couldn't possible know that the accuser is a liar, or even just wrong, then
> that person would have to be as bad or worse than the person he accused of
> being a liar.
>
Excuse me this last statement really goes a long way to making me
believe you are in fact Russ G. using a pseudonym. Even if you aren't
you use the same "LOGIC" to defend your actions. Since when does the
accuser not have to give some proof of his accusations. Russ G. is an
asshole for accusing people of cheating and then just letting it go at
that. And if you accept his word then you are a fool. Of course if
you really are Russ G. and just using a coardly way of responding then
maybe you are just a sick man after all.
Vince.
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>It may be screwed up, Wayno, but the alternative is no information,
>whitewashed information, or misinformation that could be detrimental to our
>financial health.
The onus is on the accused to prove that an accusation is true.
It is not on the accused to prove he "didn't" do something, or to
prove a negative. What's the hard part about this concept? Which
part is tripping you up? You've had your bumper car stuck on this
barricade for almost two years, and you still don't seem to understand
the concept.
Certainly one of the most amusing patterns, over the last two
years, is when someone posts a message stating that _________ (fill in
name of well-known player of your choice) was caught cheating at
________ (fill in well-known card-room of your choice).
At this point, a very, very curious thing happens in LaddVille.
Nothing. Silence reigns. Is there any call for proof? No. Is there
a call for substantiation? No. Silence falls across the valley in
LaddVille and everyone sleeps slumberously the deep sleep of
obliviousness and contentment.
Shortly after this, a denial comes rolling in (a denial of the
original accusation)-- by (pick one) a friend, an acquaintance, the
person himself, etc. Then another very curious thing happens. All of
a sudden it's hustle and bustle in LaddVille. Can we see proof? Do
you have any way to prove the negative? Can anyone offer proof that
he DIDN'T do it? Now suddenly is the time for proof!-- (from the
accused, of course). There's no more silence in LaddVille now-- it's
Man the battle stations, we need proof from the accused that he didn't
do it. Logic is twisted in ways that would be the envy of a
balloon-folding act in order to rationalize why proof isn't required
from the accuser, but is an absolute must from the accused.
>I'd rather suffer through you and Badger calling me an evil, corrupted, paid
>off stooge for Russ, than to let the alternative exist where Russ has no
>voice,
What happened to "silenced"-- our bid to "silence" him?
Doesn't this phrase usually go here? Also, on the "silencing Russ"
front-- he posted about 137 different posts in the last 48 hours. Are
you pretty worried that Russ will "have no voice"? Yeah, I am too.
That's the one thing that worries me most.
>or is barraged with so many posts that he can't answer them all
This happened some time? Hey, refer me to the day, will you--
I'd like to see what it looked like.
>and
>then have you point out that "he's suddenly silent on this one", or have you
>twist his words to mean something that he didn't say--
The other day I posted 6 different quotes by Russ about how he's
"cleaning up poker". I'll leave some room here below so you can tell
me how I distorted those quotes.
<insert billows of fog here>
>Certainly Russ has been wrong in the past and probably will be in the
>future.
Really.
>Whether his mistakes were poor judgment, bad second hand
>information, or plain outright lies, we'll all have to judge that for
>ourselves. But we've also been given information that, without Russ, we'd
>never have known.
Let's talk just a minute about this 'information', since you
keep referring to it.
I saw a post from you the other day saying that Russ let you
"watch him play" (or words to this effect-- I'm not going to look it
up) while the two of you discussed strategy. Question: was Russ
cheating at this time? Was he cheating RGP'ers at the time? Do you
have some strict personal rule that you only do this sort of thing
with him when he's not cheating? In your great thirst for knowledge,
is there some point where you draw the line? Or is all information of
such great value that you just stay in bed with him all the time no
matter what? Please tell me where the dividing line is here, or is it
just all so gosh-darn valuable that there really isn't any? In other
words, the morality of it is never a factor here, as long as you're
getting some information out of it.
>We've received a secondary benefit of Russ' posts, and
>that is other people that would have kept quiet rather than face the flames
>are standing up and saying what they know, what they've seen or what they
>believe. Again, some of this may be wrong information, but I'd rather have
>to make the decision whether the information given to me is wrong than be
>stuck with the alternative of no information or industry propaganda.
Hey, feel free to have your own opinion. If you see the
moon-rise in the night sky over Hernandez, New Mexico, and you want to
call it a Boeing 747, that's your God given right as an American. Far
be it from me to take this away from you.
>Robert Ladd
Jeff Yoak
> La Ciclon wrote:
>> ...
>> Men & Scotty play on the same bankroll.
>
> sounds like a Nguyen Nguyen arrangement.
Durn it, I've been waiting for a year to find just the right situation to
use that joke. :-)
Cheers,
Jeff
Jeff Yoak
> dont they keep an accurate chip count of everyones chips in a tournament
> so that someone could not have "extra" tournament chips in his hotel
> room?
They do, but chips turn up missing all the time. Because every pot / win
/ loss isn't tracked it is impossible to determine where the chips came
out of play.
Cheers,
Jeff
Roswell
> sounds like a Nguyen Nguyen arrangement.
That is some funny fucking shit.
Scott N
> On Jun 22 2003 2:30PM, La Ciclon wrote:
>
>> I know for a FACT this is true - albeit maybe not all the time.
>
> If you mean Men has taken pieces of Scotty in tournaments before
> than
> yes. As far as them sharing a bankroll?? What the?? Are you
> serious? Do you really believe that's true? Normally where there is
> smoke there is fire, but in this case there is a whole lot of smoke,
> but there ain't no fire.
>
> Daniel Negreanu
> www.fullcontactpoker.com
>
Funny thing is if you go to the Nevada Gaming website and have a look at
their "Most Wanted" list, a lot of them are Asian. And the same can be
said for any walk through of a major (and sometimes smaller)
tournament...
And when you once witness a few of them talking non english in a
bathroom during break of a tournament and two of them going going into a
toilet stall together, it makes you wonder how entrenched they are in
the gambling world. The new "Mob" of Poker?
Remember, what you can see is only 10% of the iceburg. Go under water so
see how much others miss.
(All speculation, I know. But I know what I saw with my own two eyes.
But hell, they could have just been smoking a joint together or
something, I don't know..)
Peter Lizak
>
> bathroom during break of a tournament and two of them going going into a
> toilet stall together, it makes you wonder how entrenched they are in
> the gambling world. The new "Mob" of Poker?
man, I knew Vegas was "Sin City", but for real, during a tournement break!
Wowsers!
Robert Ladd
You are not the sharpest knife in the drawer Wayno. There's probably been
100,000 posts over the last two years where I've been silent. Does that
mean I'm trying to hide from the truth of all of these messages? Does it
mean I agree or disagree with any or all of these? Does it say which side I
am on when I stay silent? DOES IT SAY I EVEN READ THE MESSAGE?
Why do I have to respond to any message just because you expect or want me
to? I have the right to pick and choose what I want to respond to and what
I want to leave alone. I also have the right to ignore threads that I don't
want to read. I'm sorry if you have a wild hair that's driving you to try
and prove that I'm someone you want to portray me as.
There's a thread entitled "Lost with big slick 3 times in 10 min....". I
didn't see you respond to this. What are you trying to hide? I've seen
you respond to other people's claims of weird situations, what is it about
this one that makes you suddenly clam up?
This approach of yours is really getting old. Give it a rest.
see in-line below.
"Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips" <Larr...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3ef77462...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 11:19:32 -0700, "Robert Ladd" wrote:
>
> >It may be screwed up, Wayno, but the alternative is no information,
> >whitewashed information, or misinformation that could be detrimental to
our
> >financial health.
>
> The onus is on the accused to prove that an accusation is true.
> It is not on the accused to prove he "didn't" do something, or to
> prove a negative. What's the hard part about this concept? Which
> part is tripping you up? You've had your bumper car stuck on this
> barricade for almost two years, and you still don't seem to understand
> the concept.
>
I do understand the concept. You don't understand that this is usenet and
we all have to make up our own minds what is true and not true. There are
people here with tin helmets extoling the benefits of having the shiny side
out or the shiny side in; people predicting with tea leaves, star
alignments, or coin flips; people accusing, abusing and amusing each other.
Most of us understand that what is written on here isn't always as truthful
or well researched as that which is written in the NY Times; and many of us
realize that it all too often unfortunately is.
> Certainly one of the most amusing patterns, over the last two
> years, is when someone posts a message stating that _________ (fill in
> name of well-known player of your choice) was caught cheating at
> ________ (fill in well-known card-room of your choice).
> At this point, a very, very curious thing happens in LaddVille.
> Nothing. Silence reigns. Is there any call for proof? No. Is there
> a call for substantiation? No. Silence falls across the valley in
> LaddVille and everyone sleeps slumberously the deep sleep of
> obliviousness and contentment.
Why would I respond? What's silly is that I'm even responding to this. How
the hell would I know if _______(fill in the name of well-known player of
your choice) was caught cheating? You honestly make no sense with crap
like this Wayno, and I'm assuming that you do it to put me on RGP tilt. For
that you probably score a point this time. But I mostly just ignore you
when you make no sense at all.
> Shortly after this, a denial comes rolling in (a denial of the
> original accusation)-- by (pick one) a friend, an acquaintance, the
> person himself, etc. Then another very curious thing happens. All of
> a sudden it's hustle and bustle in LaddVille. Can we see proof? Do
> you have any way to prove the negative? Can anyone offer proof that
> he DIDN'T do it? Now suddenly is the time for proof!-- (from the
> accused, of course). There's no more silence in LaddVille now-- it's
> Man the battle stations, we need proof from the accused that he didn't
> do it. Logic is twisted in ways that would be the envy of a
> balloon-folding act in order to rationalize why proof isn't required
> from the accuser, but is an absolute must from the accused.
>
Clear, concise and to the point. I think Billy Preston described it best
when he said, "Will it go round in circles?", or am I thinking of "Nothing
from nothing leaves nothing"? Typical Wayno blah, blah, blah.
>
> >I'd rather suffer through you and Badger calling me an evil, corrupted,
paid
> >off stooge for Russ, than to let the alternative exist where Russ has no
> >voice,
>
> What happened to "silenced"-- our bid to "silence" him?
> Doesn't this phrase usually go here? Also, on the "silencing Russ"
> front-- he posted about 137 different posts in the last 48 hours. Are
> you pretty worried that Russ will "have no voice"? Yeah, I am too.
> That's the one thing that worries me most.
>
Who knows? Maybe Russ would have gotten frustrated and left without my
help in evening up the discussion and taking a little of the pressure off.
Of course, probably not, but that's my choice in any case.
> >or is barraged with so many posts that he can't answer them all
>
> This happened some time? Hey, refer me to the day, will you--
> I'd like to see what it looked like.
>
My guess is that it probably looks like those days where he writes 50
replies and since he didn't reply to one that you wrote, you start screaming
about "Why the silence all of the sudden Russ?"
> >and
> >then have you point out that "he's suddenly silent on this one", or have
you
> >twist his words to mean something that he didn't say--
>
> The other day I posted 6 different quotes by Russ about how he's
> "cleaning up poker". I'll leave some room here below so you can tell
> me how I distorted those quotes.
>
> <insert billows of fog here>
>
Oh, well that would certainly prove that you never distorted any of his
quotes. I guess by that logic, someone that has shoplifted at a store a few
times, never actually stole anything if he goes in and pays for things most
of the time.
>
>
> >Certainly Russ has been wrong in the past and probably will be in the
> >future.
>
> Really.
>
> >Whether his mistakes were poor judgment, bad second hand
> >information, or plain outright lies, we'll all have to judge that for
> >ourselves. But we've also been given information that, without Russ,
we'd
> >never have known.
>
> Let's talk just a minute about this 'information', since you
> keep referring to it.
> I saw a post from you the other day saying that Russ let you
> "watch him play" (or words to this effect-- I'm not going to look it
> up) while the two of you discussed strategy. Question: was Russ
> cheating at this time?
>
I don't know. But he said he wasn't. I believe him because if he was
cheating then he's much more a genius than even he claims. The strategy
that he was explaining as he went along was extremely detailed and if he was
colluding with someone else or running multiple computers I'm sure I would
have noticed a silence or a distraction while he was talking.
> Was he cheating RGP'ers at the time? Do you
> have some strict personal rule that you only do this sort of thing
> with him when he's not cheating?
>
No. What Russ choses to do or not do is his business. I seldom try to
moralize about other people's lives. I'll leave that up to perfect people
like you and John Ashcroft.
> In your great thirst for knowledge,
> is there some point where you draw the line? Or is all information of
> such great value that you just stay in bed with him all the time no
> matter what? Please tell me where the dividing line is here, or is it
> just all so gosh-darn valuable that there really isn't any? In other
> words, the morality of it is never a factor here, as long as you're
> getting some information out of it.
>
Well, gee whiz Wayno, maybe I should try to reform him. Maybe I should
explain to him the error in his ways and get him a job at the local homeless
shelter passing out trays of food to the less fortunate. Maybe I should try
to get him religion.
Russ is what he is. I don't have to like it or dislike it. That doesn't
mean I don't want to hear what he has to say.
> >We've received a secondary benefit of Russ' posts, and
> >that is other people that would have kept quiet rather than face the
flames
> >are standing up and saying what they know, what they've seen or what they
> >believe. Again, some of this may be wrong information, but I'd rather
have
> >to make the decision whether the information given to me is wrong than be
> >stuck with the alternative of no information or industry propaganda.
>
> Hey, feel free to have your own opinion.
Boy do I feel privileged that you allow me this option. I bet all the rest
that read RGP are envious that I've received your blessing to have my own
opinion.
> If you see the
> moon-rise in the night sky over Hernandez, New Mexico, and you want to
> call it a Boeing 747, that's your God given right as an American. Far
> be it from me to take this away from you.
>
Is that anywhere near the Taos, New Mexico of Poker?
>
> >Robert Ladd
>
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>You are not the sharpest knife in the drawer Wayno. There's probably been
>100,000 posts over the last two years where I've been silent. Does that
>mean I'm trying to hide from the truth of all of these messages? Does it
>mean I agree or disagree with any or all of these? Does it say which side I
>am on when I stay silent? DOES IT SAY I EVEN READ THE MESSAGE?
As is very clear from what I wrote, I was specifically referring
to threads where somebody makes some kind of accusation of cheating or
some similar unbsubstantiated claim against another person. I was not
referring to every post in the history of RGP, though it was a nice
try on your part to distort it to this. The meaning is clear to any 6
year old who reads what I wrote. Whenever an accusation is made,
you're out of the country, laying somewhere in a coma, with a bag over
your head, unable to respond, and having no opinion. When the person
(or anybody) being accused then makes a denial of it, you suddenly
spring to life on a moment's notice. Now you're offended. Now you're
all over the keyboard, suddenly. All of this is quite clear in what I
originally wrote.
Your position seems to be this:
You're deeply offended by the idea of CENSORING any
unsubstantiated allegations made against people, but the
unsubstantiated allegations themselves, you have no problem with.
Just strikes me as a curious weighting of values-- sort of like being
against embezzling, but having no problem with bank robbery.
Something very odd about it.
>Why do I have to respond to any message just because you expect or want me
>to? I have the right to pick and choose what I want to respond to and what
>I want to leave alone.
You can respond to anything you want. I'm just responding to
the hypocrisy of never being offended by the unfounded accusation, but
always being offended by the denial.
>There's a thread entitled "Lost with big slick 3 times in 10 min....". I
>didn't see you respond to this. What are you trying to hide? I've seen
>you respond to other people's claims of weird situations, what is it about
>this one that makes you suddenly clam up?
As I explained above, I was referring to posts & threads where
someone is accused of something, without substantiation. It's very
clever on your part to try to distort this into "all other posts and
threads" in the history of RGP, but I'm kind of alert, so I notice
maneuvers like that.
>This approach of yours is really getting old. Give it a rest.
>
>see in-line below.
>
>
>"Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips" <Larr...@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:3ef77462...@news.cis.dfn.de...
>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 11:19:32 -0700, "Robert Ladd" wrote:
>>
>> >It may be screwed up, Wayno, but the alternative is no information,
>> >whitewashed information, or misinformation that could be detrimental to
>our
>> >financial health.
>>
>> The onus is on the accused to prove that an accusation is true.
>> It is not on the accused to prove he "didn't" do something, or to
>> prove a negative. What's the hard part about this concept? Which
>> part is tripping you up? You've had your bumper car stuck on this
>> barricade for almost two years, and you still don't seem to understand
>> the concept.
>>
>I do understand the concept.
About once exactly, every 10 months or so, you give lip service
to this idea (that the onus is on the accuser, not the accused)..
But it's just lip service. In actual practice, for you, in this
newsgroup, it doesn't exist. By which I mean, your actual actions in
relation to accused people (by Russ).
>You don't understand that this is usenet and
>we all have to make up our own minds what is true and not true. There are
>people here with tin helmets extoling the benefits of having the shiny side
>out or the shiny side in; people predicting with tea leaves, star
>alignments, or coin flips; people accusing, abusing and amusing each other.
>Most of us understand that what is written on here isn't always as truthful
>or well researched as that which is written in the NY Times; and many of us
>realize that it all too often unfortunately is.
>
>
>> Certainly one of the most amusing patterns, over the last two
>> years, is when someone posts a message stating that _________ (fill in
>> name of well-known player of your choice) was caught cheating at
>> ________ (fill in well-known card-room of your choice).
>> At this point, a very, very curious thing happens in LaddVille.
>> Nothing. Silence reigns. Is there any call for proof? No. Is there
>> a call for substantiation? No. Silence falls across the valley in
>> LaddVille and everyone sleeps slumberously the deep sleep of
>> obliviousness and contentment.
>Why would I respond? What's silly is that I'm even responding to this. How
>the hell would I know if _______(fill in the name of well-known player of
>your choice) was caught cheating?
For some reason you seem to have an opinion and a response as
soon as there is a denial. When somebody says, "this is an unfounded,
unsubstantiated rumor from an anoymous poster", all of a sudden you're
full of opinions. Prior to this you have none, of course. (When the
accusation was made). All of this is explained in detail in my
earlier post.
Sure.
>Of course, probably not, but that's my choice in any case.
>
>> >or is barraged with so many posts that he can't answer them all
>>
>> This happened some time? Hey, refer me to the day, will you--
>> I'd like to see what it looked like.
>>
>
>My guess is that it probably looks like those days where he writes 50
>replies and since he didn't reply to one that you wrote, you start screaming
>about "Why the silence all of the sudden Russ?"
When a guy whose motto is "The truth is hard to stop, logic just
gets in the way"-- a person who has self-inflated his gas-baggery to
this elevated level-- then begins ducking certain questions, and
hiding from his own folly that he wrote (examples available), yeah, I
think you can just count on some of us to be there sticking-the-pin
in.
>> >and
>> >then have you point out that "he's suddenly silent on this one", or have
>you
>> >twist his words to mean something that he didn't say--
>>
>> The other day I posted 6 different quotes by Russ about how he's
>> "cleaning up poker". I'll leave some room here below so you can tell
>> me how I distorted those quotes.
>>
>> <insert billows of fog here>
>>
>
>Oh, well that would certainly prove that you never distorted any of his
>quotes. I guess by that logic, someone that has shoplifted at a store a few
>times, never actually stole anything if he goes in and pays for things most
>of the time.
>
For more on YOUR distortion of what I wrote, scroll to the
top where I point it out. Or to the bottom, where I also point it
out.
>> >Certainly Russ has been wrong in the past and probably will be in the
>> >future.
>>
>> Really.
>>
>> >Whether his mistakes were poor judgment, bad second hand
>> >information, or plain outright lies, we'll all have to judge that for
>> >ourselves. But we've also been given information that, without Russ,
>we'd
>> >never have known.
>>
>> Let's talk just a minute about this 'information', since you
>> keep referring to it.
>> I saw a post from you the other day saying that Russ let you
>> "watch him play" (or words to this effect-- I'm not going to look it
>> up) while the two of you discussed strategy. Question: was Russ
>> cheating at this time?
>>
>I don't know.
Would you have any problem with it if he was? I just don't see
a point here where you would ever have a problem with it. You seem to
possess enough mental agility and gymnastics to be able to rationalize
it if he was cheating right in front of you while you were talking to
him ("Not my problem", "Barely know him", "It's a free world, so maybe
I'll just learn something by standing here and watching him cheat his
fellow players", etc, etc, etc.). Any problem with any of this? (Keep
in mind, you've been hyping the Anti-Cheating for quite a long time--
any of this seem contradictory in any way to you?)
>But he said he wasn't. I believe him because if he was
>cheating then he's much more a genius than even he claims. The strategy
>that he was explaining as he went along was extremely detailed and if he was
>colluding with someone else or running multiple computers I'm sure I would
>have noticed a silence or a distraction while he was talking.
> > Was he cheating RGP'ers at the time? Do you
>> have some strict personal rule that you only do this sort of thing
>> with him when he's not cheating?
>>
>No. What Russ choses to do or not do is his business.
Nice try, but this question, again, was not about Russ, it was
about you. Nice try at distorting it into something else. The
question was if YOU had a personal rule that you don't watch him when
he's cheating. If he's cheating online, possibly cheating RGP'ers,
for instance, do you have any problem with watching him at those
times, or do you have, like, a personal rule that you don't watch him
then? The question was about you. Nice deflection, though.
> I seldom try to
>moralize about other people's lives. I'll leave that up to perfect people
>like you and John Ashcroft.
The question wasn't about Russ. See above.
>> In your great thirst for knowledge,
>> is there some point where you draw the line? Or is all information of
>> such great value that you just stay in bed with him all the time no
>> matter what? Please tell me where the dividing line is here, or is it
>> just all so gosh-darn valuable that there really isn't any? In other
>> words, the morality of it is never a factor here, as long as you're
>> getting some information out of it.
>>
>
>Well, gee whiz Wayno, maybe I should try to reform him.
Once again, this isn't about him. It's about you. Re-read the
paragraph again. Is there any point where climbing in bed with this
guy ISN'Tokay-- as long as it yields some knowledge? Is there any line
at all that you draw? How about if he's cheating in a B&M poker room,
while you stand behind him and watch? Have any problem with that?
Would that represent any ethical dilemma at all for you?
I just can't seem to get this image out of my mind of you in the
Vichy Government in France. It's just the image that comes to mind.
I picture these long-winded arguments with collaborators saying, Look,
if we don't help the Nazi's, someone else is going to, and this way we
can do a better job for our own people, and all this other
intellectual hogwash and mental gymnastics used to rationalize and
bullshit over the obvious.
And no, I'm not accusing you of being a Nazi. I'm simply
referring to the wonderful gymnastic ability of the human brain to
endlessly rationalize and justify things.
>Maybe I should
>explain to him the error in his ways and get him a job at the local homeless
>shelter passing out trays of food to the less fortunate. Maybe I should try
>to get him religion.
It's not about him-- nice try (again) at distortion. I don't
care what Russ does. I could care less. It's about you. You're the
one with the psuedo moralizing going on here when accused people try
to defend themselves.
>Russ is what he is. I don't have to like it or dislike it. That doesn't
>mean I don't want to hear what he has to say.
>> >We've received a secondary benefit of Russ' posts, and
>> >that is other people that would have kept quiet rather than face the
>flames
>> >are standing up and saying what they know, what they've seen or what they
>> >believe. Again, some of this may be wrong information, but I'd rather
>have
>> >to make the decision whether the information given to me is wrong than be
>> >stuck with the alternative of no information or industry propaganda.
>>
>> Hey, feel free to have your own opinion.
>
>Boy do I feel privileged that you allow me this option. I bet all the rest
>that read RGP are envious that I've received your blessing to have my own
>opinion.
>
>> If you see the
>> moon-rise in the night sky over Hernandez, New Mexico, and you want to
>> call it a Boeing 747, that's your God given right as an American. Far
>> be it from me to take this away from you.
>>
>Is that anywhere near the Taos, New Mexico of Poker?
It might be.
>>
>> >Robert Ladd
Robert Ladd
Who said I believe this? How do you know what I believe? Just because I
defend someone's right to say something doesn't mean I believe what he says
on any specific point, or like what he says. I can believe, I can
disbelieve, I can withhold my judgement, I can mull over the possibilities
and feel that I'm sure it's true, or that I think it's true, or that I'm not
sure if it's true, or that it's completely untrue or any of many other
shades between true and false, or I could wait for more information before I
decide, or maybe never decide at all.
> > So when someone makes an accusation, and someone else calls him a liar
and a
> > vulgar name for making that statement, I think I have the right, no
actually
> > the duty, as a witness in this Court of RGP to point out that since he
> > couldn't possible know that the accuser is a liar, or even just wrong,
then
> > that person would have to be as bad or worse than the person he accused
of
> > being a liar.
> >
> Excuse me this last statement really goes a long way to making me
> believe you are in fact Russ G. using a pseudonym.
>
Wow, you are a clever one. Now that you've figured that out, I'll have to
tell you that I'm also Wayno. I love to debate with my self and self.
>Even if you aren't
> you use the same "LOGIC" to defend your actions. Since when does the
> accuser not have to give some proof of his accusations. Russ G. is an
> asshole for accusing people of cheating and then just letting it go at
> that. And if you accept his word then you are a fool.
>
Well, if I'm Russ then I'd know whether to believe me or not. And if I'm
not, then what would compel me to accept your word any more than his?
So, if you're telling me that I'd be a fool accepting his word, then I'd be
a fool accepting your word that I'd be a fool accepting his word. I don't
"accept" anything any of you say. I listen and decide what I want to
believe or not believe.
But one thing is certain. From all your posts, you've proven yourself to be
so intelligent and honest that I'm going to put you at the top of my believe
list, if I decide to ever believe anyone again.
Robert Ladd
Daniel Negreanu
> Daniel - you're a friend and I like you - but I'm telling you - I know what
> I heard out of their own mouths, albeit in Vietnamese (suprise! I know
> enough of the speaking language to get by).
>
> If you REALLY wanna know what's going on when they talk - take Vietnamese I,
> II and III in college like I was smart enough to do.
>
> "danh t? c?a tôi ti?n b?c." (Play My Money).
Ok, this makes sense then. What likely happened was you heard Men
say to Scotty "play my money". As in, Scotty play Men's money. That's
nowhere near the same thing as them sharing a bankroll. If they were
sharing, wouldn't they both be putting up money?
What the boys used to do in the old days was "sharing a bankroll".
As in, they all travelled together and played out of the same
bankroll.
That's my definition of sharing a bankroll, and there is no chance
in hell that that is happening with Men and Scotty. Couldn't possibly
be, and I know this for an absolute fact.
I never said anything about whether or not they did or didn't cheat
in the past. Never. All I said was, they ain't sharing no bankroll
that's a certainty.
Daniel Negreanu
www.fullcontactpoker.com
Robert Ladd
the questions raised. Unless there's some extraordinary compelling reason
to continue, I'm through on this one.
"Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips" <Larr...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3ef7b02b...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 18:50:03 -0700, "Robert Ladd" wrote:
>
> >You are not the sharpest knife in the drawer Wayno. There's probably
been
> >100,000 posts over the last two years where I've been silent. Does that
> >mean I'm trying to hide from the truth of all of these messages? Does
it
> >mean I agree or disagree with any or all of these? Does it say which
side I
> >am on when I stay silent? DOES IT SAY I EVEN READ THE MESSAGE?
>
> As is very clear from what I wrote, I was specifically referring
> to threads where somebody makes some kind of accusation of cheating or
> some similar unbsubstantiated claim against another person.
> I was not referring to every post in the history of RGP, though it was a
nice
> try on your part to distort it to this.
>
I don't read every thread. I don't even read every thread that has a hint
of cheating or an accusation of cheating. There was a point a few months
back where I cleared the unread status of all the messages. And started
with zero unread. I tried keeping up with that for a week or so, reading
every post, or at least opening every post for a quick glance. I gave that
up real quick and now I've got 14874 unread posts.
I hope the posts you were expecting me to read and respond to weren't in
those 14+ thousand.
The meaning is clear to any 6
> year old who reads what I wrote. Whenever an accusation is made,
> you're out of the country, laying somewhere in a coma, with a bag over
> your head, unable to respond, and having no opinion. When the person
> (or anybody) being accused then makes a denial of it, you suddenly
> spring to life on a moment's notice. Now you're offended.
>
When did I EVER get offended when someone defended themselves or someone
else?
>Now you're
> all over the keyboard, suddenly. All of this is quite clear in what I
> originally wrote.
> Your position seems to be this:
> You're deeply offended by the idea of CENSORING any
> unsubstantiated allegations made against people, but the
> unsubstantiated allegations themselves, you have no problem with.
I want all the information I can get and then I'll make my own decisions.
If Russ wanted to send the information to me privately, then I'll be glad to
get it that way. But getting the information out to me isn't his priority.
So I want the channels open when he does let go. And I'm not stopping
anyone from calling Russ a liar, but I think I can question the irony of
someone calling Russ a liar about a statement he makes when that person
couldn't possible know if Russ is lying or not.
> Just strikes me as a curious weighting of values-- sort of like being
> against embezzling, but having no problem with bank robbery.
> Something very odd about it.
>
>
> >Why do I have to respond to any message just because you expect or want
me
> >to? I have the right to pick and choose what I want to respond to and
what
> >I want to leave alone.
>
> You can respond to anything you want. I'm just responding to
> the hypocrisy of never being offended by the unfounded accusation, but
> always being offended by the denial.
>
Typical Wayno misrepresentation and repetition tactic.
> >There's a thread entitled "Lost with big slick 3 times in 10 min....". I
> >didn't see you respond to this. What are you trying to hide? I've seen
> >you respond to other people's claims of weird situations, what is it
about
> >this one that makes you suddenly clam up?
>
> As I explained above, I was referring to posts & threads where
> someone is accused of something, without substantiation. It's very
> clever on your part to try to distort this into "all other posts and
> threads" in the history of RGP, but I'm kind of alert, so I notice
> maneuvers like that.
>
And as I answered, I too don't read every post nor find it necessary to
address all posts that deal with cheating or cheating allegations.
You imagine maneuvers like that because you do it all the time, it's second
nature to you.
> >This approach of yours is really getting old. Give it a rest.
> >
> >see in-line below.
> >
> >
> >"Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips" <Larr...@charter.net> wrote in message
> >news:3ef77462...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> >> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 11:19:32 -0700, "Robert Ladd" wrote:
> >>
> >> >It may be screwed up, Wayno, but the alternative is no information,
> >> >whitewashed information, or misinformation that could be detrimental
to
> >our
> >> >financial health.
> >>
> >> The onus is on the accused to prove that an accusation is true.
> >> It is not on the accused to prove he "didn't" do something, or to
> >> prove a negative. What's the hard part about this concept? Which
> >> part is tripping you up? You've had your bumper car stuck on this
> >> barricade for almost two years, and you still don't seem to understand
> >> the concept.
> >>
> >I do understand the concept.
>
> About once exactly, every 10 months or so, you give lip service
> to this idea (that the onus is on the accuser, not the accused)..
> But it's just lip service. In actual practice, for you, in this
> newsgroup, it doesn't exist. By which I mean, your actual actions in
> relation to accused people (by Russ).
>
And what actions would those be Wayno? Are they anywhere close to the
actions where Badger accused me of lying and making up a story about UB not
paying out the advertised amount to the professional players because I'm an
evil person trying to hurt UB and the WPT and you jumping on the bandwagon
to call me a liar and an evil person too.
Show me an example of where I did this. You blather on with inuendo of what
I do or don't do, but you don't provide any specifics.
Go ahead and stick the pin in. What would you have me say Wayno? When he
makes a mistake I don't have to post because I'm well aware that there are
plenty of you out there scanning every word for a flaw. I wince, send him
an e-mail that he really should be more careful and chalk up a mark that he
screwed up again.
If I feel that he received enough punishment for the transgression, I may
jump in and try to even things up a little or stay the execution, but I
usually just stay out of those threads. Of course you then scream bloody
murder that I was "suddenly out of the country" avoiding the negative
publicity. It was Russ that made the statement and Russ that will deal with
the consequences. I'm not responsible for what he says and he is not
responsible for what I say. I know that's not the image you want to portray
of Russ and I, because that won't fit your sock puppet scenario. You need
that scenario to convince people that Russ is a liar and anyone that would
agree with him is either really Russ using an alias or someone that is being
manipulated by him. I am neither one.
It's my personal business what I feel about cheating. If I want to go into
it someday, I might, but I'm not going to let you push me into that arena.
> You seem to
> possess enough mental agility and gymnastics to be able to rationalize
> it if he was cheating right in front of you while you were talking to
> him ("Not my problem", "Barely know him", "It's a free world, so maybe
> I'll just learn something by standing here and watching him cheat his
> fellow players", etc, etc, etc.). Any problem with any of this? (Keep
> in mind, you've been hyping the Anti-Cheating for quite a long time--
> any of this seem contradictory in any way to you?)
>
You don't know my stand on cheating, Wayno. All you know is that I want to
find out about it. I want Russ to be able to tell us when and where
cheating occurs, how it's done, who's doing it, etc. I want information so
I'm not vulnerable. Other than that, you have no clue where I stand on the
issue.
> >But he said he wasn't. I believe him because if he was
> >cheating then he's much more a genius than even he claims. The strategy
> >that he was explaining as he went along was extremely detailed and if he
was
> >colluding with someone else or running multiple computers I'm sure I
would
> >have noticed a silence or a distraction while he was talking.
>
>
>
> > > Was he cheating RGP'ers at the time? Do you
> >> have some strict personal rule that you only do this sort of thing
> >> with him when he's not cheating?
> >>
> >No. What Russ choses to do or not do is his business.
>
> Nice try, but this question, again, was not about Russ, it was
> about you. Nice try at distorting it into something else. The
> question was if YOU had a personal rule that you don't watch him when
> he's cheating.
>
Again, I don't choose to state my position at this time.
>If he's cheating online, possibly cheating RGP'ers,
> for instance, do you have any problem with watching him at those
> times, or do you have, like, a personal rule that you don't watch him
> then?
>
As I said, I don't think he was cheating, and therefore I wasn't faced with
that dilemma. If faced with it, at this point I don't know what I'd do, and
even if I was sure what I'd do, I know I'm not going to share that with you
right now.
> The question was about you. Nice deflection, though.
>
> > I seldom try to
> >moralize about other people's lives. I'll leave that up to perfect
people
> >like you and John Ashcroft.
>
> The question wasn't about Russ. See above.
>
I'm not going to share my version of morality with you at this point. See
above.
>
> >> In your great thirst for knowledge,
> >> is there some point where you draw the line? Or is all information of
> >> such great value that you just stay in bed with him all the time no
> >> matter what? Please tell me where the dividing line is here, or is it
> >> just all so gosh-darn valuable that there really isn't any? In other
> >> words, the morality of it is never a factor here, as long as you're
> >> getting some information out of it.
> >>
> >
> >Well, gee whiz Wayno, maybe I should try to reform him.
>
> Once again, this isn't about him. It's about you. Re-read the
> paragraph again. Is there any point where climbing in bed with this
> guy ISN'Tokay-- as long as it yields some knowledge?
>
Define it any way you want, but you have no clue what my real convictions
are. I may share them someday, or then again I may slam a hot poker in my
eye first.
>Is there any line
> at all that you draw? How about if he's cheating in a B&M poker room,
> while you stand behind him and watch? Have any problem with that?
>
Maybe, maybe not.
> Would that represent any ethical dilemma at all for you?
> I just can't seem to get this image out of my mind of you in the
> Vichy Government in France. It's just the image that comes to mind.
> I picture these long-winded arguments with collaborators saying, Look,
> if we don't help the Nazi's, someone else is going to, and this way we
> can do a better job for our own people, and all this other
> intellectual hogwash and mental gymnastics used to rationalize and
> bullshit over the obvious.
>
All this from the paragon of virtue. Sorry, I'm not going to play this game
with you Wayno. I take my ball and bat and go home.
> And no, I'm not accusing you of being a Nazi. I'm simply
> referring to the wonderful gymnastic ability of the human brain to
> endlessly rationalize and justify things.
>
And you're representing the U.S. in the next brain gymnastic olympics, since
you're WC in that event.
>
> >Maybe I should
> >explain to him the error in his ways and get him a job at the local
homeless
> >shelter passing out trays of food to the less fortunate. Maybe I should
try
> >to get him religion.
>
> It's not about him-- nice try (again) at distortion. I don't
> care what Russ does. I could care less. It's about you. You're the
> one with the psuedo moralizing going on here when accused people try
> to defend themselves.
>
Show me where I "psuedo moralized" when someone defended themselves. Make
up this BS just to get a raise out of me or plant the false seed.
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
<Snip towering geysers of foamy wordage>
>> For some reason you seem to have an opinion and a response as
>> soon as there is a denial. When somebody says, "this is an unfounded,
>> unsubstantiated rumor from an anoymous poster", all of a sudden you're
>> full of opinions. Prior to this you have none, of course. (When the
>> accusation was made). All of this is explained in detail in my
>> earlier post.
>>
>Show me an example of where I did this.
Look for any post over the last two years where Russ made an
accusation against somebody, and then see if, directly underneath
that, there are any posts signed "Robert Ladd" where you took issue
directly with his making an unsubstantiated allegation. This shouldn't
be too hard-- there are hundreds to choose from. See if your name
appears in there somewhere protesting the unfounded allegation he
made, or if you see just, um, silence.
I'd love to spend the time looking up the specific examples
myself, but I'm not going to waste the time. It might be easier if I
just point it out the next time you do it-- this approach might also
have a preventative effect too.
>It's my personal business what I feel about cheating. If I want to go into
>it someday, I might, but I'm not going to let you push me into that arena.
>Again, I don't choose to state my position at this time.
This is the point where a cynic might say: Gee, Ladd had no
problem stating his position on cheating for a year and a half, in
hundreds of posts of every kind-- about Aruba, about how Organized
Poker "Industry" was doing this, that and the other, covering things
up, and so on. Now all of a sudden his views are private. Luckily
I'm not a cynic, though, so I wouldn't notice a glaring discrepancy
like this.
>As I said, I don't think he was cheating, and therefore I wasn't faced with
>that dilemma. If faced with it, at this point I don't know what I'd do, and
>even if I was sure what I'd do, I know I'm not going to share that with you
>right now.
Frankly, I don't don't care what you and Russ do. I don't care
if you're teleconferencing together, or if he's cheating on Tue, Wed,
& Thursdays, and you only watch him on Mon, Thursday and Saturday, or
its every other day, and you switch off, or you're both on the speaker
phone, or instant messaging, or the two of you have matching pagers,
or whatever. That's fine with me. It's a free country-- hey, knock
yourself out. But here's what I've got a problem with: you two are
the ones who have been in the vanguard of running the RGP
Anti-Cheating Crusade for a year and a half. The guy you're pal-ing
around with-- is himself currently cheating! Do you see any
contradiction there? Do you see why some people might have a problem
with this set-up?
>I'm not going to share my version of morality with you at this point.
You shared it for a year and a half. This seems a strange time
to suddenly have no views on the subject.
>>Is there any line at all that you draw? How about if he's cheating in a
>>B&M poker room, while you stand behind him and watch? Have any
>>problem with that?
>>
>Maybe, maybe not.
Hmm. The correct answer here was "Yes, I do have a problem with
it"-- especially if you have been visably in the forefront of the
"cleaning up poker" crusade, and have made hundreds of posts on the
subject over the last year and a half.
-Wayno
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>here's what I've got a problem with: you two are
>the ones who have been in the vanguard of running the RGP
>Anti-Cheating Crusade for a year and a half. The guy you're pal-ing
>around with-- is himself currently cheating! Do you see any
>contradiction there? Do you see why some people might have a problem
>with this set-up?
Wait a second, we have some late-breaking news here. This just
came over the news-wire in another thread...
>On 24 Jun 2003 21(Newgca) wrote:
>Russ Georgiev and John Martino are going commercial. We have stopped cheating...
Robert Ladd
> On Tue, 24 June 03 "Robert Ladd" wrote:
>
> <Snip towering geysers of foamy wordage>
>
> >> For some reason you seem to have an opinion and a response as
> >> soon as there is a denial. When somebody says, "this is an unfounded,
> >> unsubstantiated rumor from an anoymous poster", all of a sudden you're
> >> full of opinions. Prior to this you have none, of course. (When the
> >> accusation was made). All of this is explained in detail in my
> >> earlier post.
> >>
> >Show me an example of where I did this.
>
> Look for any post over the last two years where Russ made an
> accusation against somebody, and then see if, directly underneath
> that, there are any posts signed "Robert Ladd" where you took issue
> directly with his making an unsubstantiated allegation. This shouldn't
> be too hard-- there are hundreds to choose from. See if your name
> appears in there somewhere protesting the unfounded allegation he
> made, or if you see just, um, silence.
WTF are you talking about you idiot? When Russ posts an allegation against
someone why in the hell would I post ANYTHING about it? I don't know the
person he's talking about, I don't know the situation he's talking about, I
wasn't there. Why would I step in and post something in that person's
favor? How in the hell would I know if it's true or not? You are a
blazing moron.
> I'd love to spend the time looking up the specific examples
> myself, but I'm not going to waste the time. It might be easier if I
> just point it out the next time you do it-- this approach might also
> have a preventative effect too.
>
> >It's my personal business what I feel about cheating. If I want to go
into
> >it someday, I might, but I'm not going to let you push me into that
arena.
>
> >Again, I don't choose to state my position at this time.
>
> This is the point where a cynic might say: Gee, Ladd had no
> problem stating his position on cheating for a year and a half, in
> hundreds of posts of every kind-- about Aruba, about how Organized
> Poker "Industry" was doing this, that and the other, covering things
> up, and so on. Now all of a sudden his views are private. Luckily
> I'm not a cynic, though, so I wouldn't notice a glaring discrepancy
> like this.
>
I may have stated my opinion on cheating in a handfull of posts, but I don't
remember. BUT, I have stated that I wanted to FIND OUT ABOUT WHO'S
CHEATING many times. I WANTED TO KNOW. That doesn't equate to my opinion.
I wanted to be aware of who, what, where and when cheating is occuring so I
can avoid getting trashed.
There are many ways to cheat at things in life and none of them are just
black or white. I've got opinions on many of the types of cheating, but I
seldom voice that opinion. I try not to moralize on other peoples actions.
If you want to cheat on your wife, your taxes, poker, your job then that's
your choice. If it affects me then I MAY voice my opinion, but even then I
more than likely just want to know about it so I can protect myself.
> >As I said, I don't think he was cheating, and therefore I wasn't faced
with
> >that dilemma. If faced with it, at this point I don't know what I'd do,
and
> >even if I was sure what I'd do, I know I'm not going to share that with
you
> >right now.
>
> Frankly, I don't don't care what you and Russ do. I don't care
> if you're teleconferencing together, or if he's cheating on Tue, Wed,
> & Thursdays, and you only watch him on Mon, Thursday and Saturday, or
> its every other day, and you switch off, or you're both on the speaker
> phone, or instant messaging, or the two of you have matching pagers,
> or whatever. That's fine with me. It's a free country-- hey, knock
> yourself out. But here's what I've got a problem with: you two are
> the ones who have been in the vanguard of running the RGP
> Anti-Cheating Crusade for a year and a half. The guy you're pal-ing
> around with-- is himself currently cheating! Do you see any
> contradiction there? Do you see why some people might have a problem
> with this set-up?
>
I can see why YOU'D have a problem with it, because you're so biased that
you haven't paid any attention to what has really been transpiring since I
started posting.
Oh BTW, I made my first "pro" Russ post at the end of July last year. That
doesn't add up to a year and a half. More of your typical rewriting of what
actually happened. AGAIN, I wasn't working in any Anti-Cheating Crusade.
I was trying to find out what was really happening. There may have been a
few times I let my opinion out, but that doesn't equate to an all-out
anti-cheating assault like you are implying.
>
> >I'm not going to share my version of morality with you at this point.
>
> You shared it for a year and a half. This seems a strange time
> to suddenly have no views on the subject.
>
Read it and weep, Wayno.
> >>Is there any line at all that you draw? How about if he's cheating in a
> >>B&M poker room, while you stand behind him and watch? Have any
> >>problem with that?
> >>
> >Maybe, maybe not.
>
> Hmm. The correct answer here was "Yes, I do have a problem with
> it"-- especially if you have been visably in the forefront of the
> "cleaning up poker" crusade, and have made hundreds of posts on the
> subject over the last year and a half.
>
Again, not a year and a half and there was no "cleaning up poker" crusade on
my part. Get your facts and figures straight.
Maybe you think "YES" is the right answer. But that's only your opinion.
For me, I may have a problem standing behind him in a B&M watching him
cheat. I may pull him aside and ask him to stop. I may feel like it's my
duty to tell the floor whether he stops or not. I may feel it's my duty to
tell the floor without confronting him about it. All of these are options,
but there is also the option not to say anything to him or anyone else.
These are real life options and which one I'd chose or any other would be
based on what I feel when confronted with the situation.
So, your "correct" answer may be correct for you, but not necessarily for
everyone.
>
> -Wayno
>
>
Robert Ladd
Robert Ladd
"Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips" <Larr...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3ef8ce47....@news.cis.dfn.de...
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>I may have stated my opinion on cheating in a handfull of posts,
>but I don't remember.
Boy, you just can't beat RGP for fun at the old ballpark.
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>> >>Is there any line at all that you draw? How about if he's cheating in a
>> >>B&M poker room, while you stand behind him and watch? Have any
>> >>problem with that?
>> >>
>> >Maybe, maybe not.
>>
>> Hmm. The correct answer here was "Yes, I do have a problem with
>> it"-- especially if you have been visably in the forefront of the
>> "cleaning up poker" crusade, and have made hundreds of posts on the
>> subject over the last year and a half.
>
>Maybe you think "YES" is the right answer. But that's only your opinion.
>For me, I may have a problem standing behind him in a B&M watching him
>cheat. I may pull him aside and ask him to stop. I may feel like it's my
>duty to tell the floor whether he stops or not. I may feel it's my duty to
>tell the floor without confronting him about it. All of these are options,
>but there is also the option not to say anything to him or anyone else.
>These are real life options and which one I'd chose or any other would be
>based on what I feel when confronted with the situation.
>
>So, your "correct" answer may be correct for you, but not necessarily for
>everyone.
LOL I had a feeling that the above example would paralyze your
ethical decision-making capabilities and you'd have no idea what the
correct answer was. It's just not black and white enough.
The same thing happened to me not long ago. I was coming out of
the Mirage one afternoon and there was a nun being assaulted by some
guy on the sidewalk. I thought to myself: Now what should I do?
Should I run away and hide? Or should I just run away? I could stand
there and think about it and mull it over for awhile. I could hide
behind a shrub. I could pretend I wasn't seeing it, and that it was a
hallucination. I could endlessly rationalize it, in the hopes that
maybe while I was doing this, the situation would somehow resolve
itself. Or I could go get some other people and we could all join
together and talk about it and share our views.
And there was another possibility here too: Extenuating
Circumstances. Maybe the nun attacked the guy. That's possible,
right? Is there any "proof" that she didn't? She was laying on the
ground bleeding, so I couldn't get the proof out of her. I like to
see some proof out of the victim before I make up my mind. We should
always be open to such possibilities. In my mind, the jury is always
out. I don't like to jump to conclusions. Anything could have
happened here, in this situation-- anything at all. Above all, I
wanted to keep my options open. That's the main thing you want to do
in situations like this. What's "right", after all? It's just a
"word" isn't it? In the real world, people have all kinds of options.
There were maybe two hundred different options in this situation. I
stood there and thought about them all, and listed them all off.
Eventually I concluded that there really is no such thing as black and
white or right and wrong, and that there were just too many different
ways to think about the situation, so I went back inside.
Robert Ladd
moral compass that you do. You and I may agree completely when we see
someone beating up a poor defenseless nun, but we may not have the same
feelings when we see someone cheating at cards.
You said you could tell a white lie to your wife. I'm sure there are people
that find that appalling, while there are others that wouldn't have a
problem with someone cheating on their wife.
Robert Ladd
"Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips" <Larr...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3ef9d0d9....@news.cis.dfn.de...
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>You're missing the point. No surprise there. Not everyone has the same
>moral compass that you do. You and I may agree completely
We "may"? I hope you're not committing yourself here. Remember,
options should always be kept open. There's really no "proof" that
the nun didn't start this, and we're going to need some kind of proof
from her before we make any kind of move, aren't we? The jury should
remain out on this until we get all the facts.
>when we see
>someone beating up a poor defenseless nun, but we may not have the same
>feelings when we see someone cheating at cards.
Let's revisit my original question, shall we?
It was this:
"How about if he (Russ) is cheating in a B&M poker room,
while you stand behind him and watch? Have any problem with that?"
If you have ANY answer to this question OTHER THAN "Yes, I would
have a problem with that", then you either (A) don't understand the
question, or (B) have the kind of serious ethical decision-making
issues that should preclude you from making voluminous reams of
moralizing concerning cheating in a newsgroup.
The answer to the question (above) is not: "It depends". The
answer is not "well, I have many options", the answer is, "Yes, I
WOULD have a problem with standing behind Russ and watching him cheat
his fellow players."
All the rest is nothing but the usual fog and bullshit.
Would you care to see a poll of what other RGP'ers would say in
answer this question?
What do you think they would say? Any guesses?
>You said you could tell a white lie to your wife. I'm sure there are people
>that find that appalling,
Setting aside the fact that that was a joke, and setting aside the
fact that there is probably some single individual person living
somewhere in southwestern Mongolia for whom this would be "appalling"
(to use your well-chosen word), this is nothing but more billows of
endless fog from the endless fog machine.
>while there are others that wouldn't have a
>problem with someone cheating on their wife.
>
> Robert Ladd
Ever since you and LoveJoy embarked on this Anti-Cheating
Campaign (or it is Pro-Cheating?-- with you two guys it's always so
hard to tell-- one day you seem to be in favor of it, and other days
you seem against it)... (& O.T., this may be a sign that your thoughts
are all over the f**king board-- the fact that the above is true) this
is simply more of the endless fog of rationalizations and verbiage
used to justify stuff just like the above.
Robert Ladd
people will do, or SAY they will do in that situation. And as for what I
would do, that's my business. Your answer is yours, and that's just peachy
that you want to parade how pristine you are. Now, why don't you be a good
little boy and find those "voluminous reams of moralizing concerning
cheating". How could anyone read any of your books and take anything you
say with any faith? You twist and exaggerate something in almost every
post where we have a discussion.
Robert Ladd
"Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips" <Larr...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3ef9f9e8....@news.cis.dfn.de...
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
>I guess I still didn't get my point across. I don't give a damn what other
>people will do, or SAY they will do in that situation. And as for what I
>would do, that's my business.
If you're hiding the way you feel about a subject that you've
posted about hundreds of times, then I think I've misjudged the
problem. This sounds more like a writing problem.
>Your answer is yours, and that's just peachy
>that you want to parade how pristine you are.
I guess I must be pretty pristine after all, if I can answer the
question "Would I have a problem standing behind Russ watching him
cheat", with a "Yes I would have a problem with that". I guess there
must be a lot of other pristine people around who would answer in the
same way. And the fact that you seem unable to answer "yes" to this
simple ethical question should tell people something.
I'm thinking of all the moralizing you did about Phil Gordon and
that whole Aruba thing, but on this a sudden major silence breaks out.
>Now, why don't you be a good
>little boy and find those "voluminous reams of moralizing concerning
>cheating".
Probably it's in Google. That's my guess. What subject do
you usually post about? Insert answer here: __________________.
Go to Google, search for this subject. Or do a search for
Jumbo+Fogbanks+of+Mauritania.
Howard Treesong
I knew your relativist colours would eventually come out. Of course,
Wayno, you missed one option here: of standing there until someone
paid you money to continue standing aside until she bled to death.
-Howard
Howard Treesong
> No one is forced to believe any or
> all of the information that comes on RGP. Thinking people will evaluate
> the messages and decide whether it's right or wrong. I honestly find it
> amazing when people don't want to receive information that can help or
> protect them.
>
> Naturally, we all have to look at the information and evaluate whether we
> believe the source, the source of the source, etc., ignore it, or prove that
> it's wrong. Somewhat the same thing a jury does in a court of law. More to
> the point, we actually have a pseudo court of law.
Yes, and in a jury setting, there's a judge in a robe sitting on the
bench, sworn under the constitution to uphold rules of evidence. If a
judge is doing his job, hearsay evidence doesn't get to the jury.
That's because there are valid reasons and interpretive rules to
suggest that on balance, it hurts litigants more than it helps them to
permit poor-quality evidence to reach a jury. Just so here. Some
posts are reliable; some are not. I believe Wayno is suggesting an
interpretive rule (that the accuser should have the burden of proving
an accusation) that on balance leads to correct interpretive outcomes.
Not all information is of equal quality, and your view that all
information should be treated in the same way ignores this fact.
-Howard
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
wrote:
I thought you might be going to say:
Form a committee and take a vote with a show of hands...
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
wrote:
>Robert Ladd:
Making a whole laundry list of accusations in the hopes of being
right about one of them, or some of them, is not a workable model.
Also, making accusations without any requirement to show any proof is
also a model that has been rejected in law and popular culture.
(Search Joe McCarthy in Google for more on this debate).
On the information front-- not all information is good, at least
as far as in relation to where it comes from and its price. For
instance, law enforcement could add greatly to its information if it
was allowed to charge into houses randomly, stop cars at random for no
reason and conduct searches, etc. We don't let them do that. (More
extreme example: Nazi medical experiments, etc.).
Wayno
Craig Permenter
"Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips" <Larr...@charter.net> wrote in message
snip
For
> instance, law enforcement could add greatly to its information if it
> was allowed to charge into houses randomly, stop cars at random for no
> reason and conduct searches, etc. We don't let them do that. (More
> extreme example: Nazi medical experiments, etc.).
>
> Wayno
We don't?
Augie Chiausa
> You and I may agree completely when we see
> someone beating up a poor defenseless nun,
I'm confused. Are you guys for or against beating up nuns. I'd have loved
to see someone coldcock Sister Catherine Agnes. She was a fucking nutcase.
Augie Chiausa
> I guess I still didn't get my point across. I don't give a damn what
other
> people will do, or SAY they will do in that situation.
Considering you've never had an original thought, and all I've seen you do
was kiss Russ' smelly ol' ass, I'm confused.
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
<achi...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>
>"Robert Ladd" <rl...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:jsmKa.169782$eJ2.133360@fed1read07...
>> You and I may agree completely when we see
>> someone beating up a poor defenseless nun,
>
>I'm confused. Are you guys for or against beating up nuns.
Yeah, and while you're at it, are you for or against cheating?
I need to know this in case this argument breaks out again, so I can
make an argument against it.
Check one, below:
( ) Yes, we're for it, because of the invaluable information
it provides-- and besides, we're doing some right now, online. We've
got 10 computers hooked up and we're slaughtering them!
( ) No, we're against it in all forms, it's the scourge of
the earth and needs to be cleaned up by whatever means necessary.
You think it's hard HOLDING views like this-- you oughta try
arguing against it.
Leanhound
attorney for twenty years. The next time I hear anyone question the
need for all these trials and lawyers, I will direct them to this
thread.
If you think someone did something wrong, then prove it.
Larry W. (Wayno) Phillips
Well, sure, in Texas and New Jersey we do.
jw_steve
"Leanhound" <mdje...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6b9e15b7.03062...@posting.google.com...
I know, I love hearing people bitch about lawyers, because
they do such a good job resolving disputes on their own.
jw steve
Scott Lewis
mdje...@hotmail.com (Leanhound) wrote in message news:<6b9e15b7.03062...@posting.google.com>...