@ McManus

[Odder]

someone please tell me that tattoo on his forearm was a temporary tattoo

[mosta]

mcmanus is a tool. and a bad writer. (you want to really scare yourself?--look for some of his "poetry".)

[ohgeetee]

LOL, what is your obsession with him? Did he refuse to sign your used copy of Positively Fifth Street or something? Every thread so far that has mentioned him, your only response has been "he is a tool."

Excellent descriptive skills and great use of supporting detail. Perhaps you failed one of his writing classes?

[ohgeetee]

I couldn't tell what it was a tat of. It looked like skin cancer or something.

[Dominic]

Can't speak about his poetry, only "Positively Fifth Street," which was a wonderful book...and that's coming from a professional writer, if that means anything...it's what first got me interested in poker...

[BeerMoney]

[ QUOTE ]
I couldn't tell what it was a tat of. It looked like skin cancer or something.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it was a couple of cards... Sort of like Worm.

[Rushmore]

I thought Positively Fifth Street was OK, but not for the craft, more for the content. I was not all that impressed with his writing ability, to be honest.

But that's not to say that I didn't think he seemed like a generally OK guy, based upon his narrative and opinions and whatnot.

Last night's episode certainly knocked him down a notch in my estimation. He came off sort of like, well....

...a tool, you know?

[27offsuit]

I think it was two Aces.

*cough*TOOL*cough*

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it was two Aces.

*cough*TOOL*cough*

[/ QUOTE ]

well, they were suited.

[Beavis68]

[ QUOTE ]
Can't speak about his poetry, only "Positively Fifth Street," which was a wonderful book...and that's coming from a professional writer, if that means anything...it's what first got me interested in poker...

[/ QUOTE ]

I think only a professional writer would think that book was was wonderful - wordy comes to mind for me - self-indulgent is another one. The parts about the WSOP were ok, it actually should have just been 2 different magazine articles, one about the WSOP, one about the trial - why do I want to know his life story?

[spacemonkey57]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can't speak about his poetry, only "Positively Fifth Street," which was a wonderful book...and that's coming from a professional writer, if that means anything...it's what first got me interested in poker...

[/ QUOTE ]

I think only a professional writer would think that book was was wonderful - wordy comes to mind for me - self-indulgent is another one. The parts about the WSOP were ok, it actually should have just been 2 different magazine articles, one about the WSOP, one about the trial - why do I want to know his life story?

[/ QUOTE ]

I just guessed that he didn't have enough material to fill an entire book. I enjoyed it, but I liked it a hell of a lot better the second time when I skipped everything to do with the trial, Sylvia Plath, and McManus family history.

[DrSavage]

mosta is right, "tool" is probably the most adequate description of him

[toots]

I agree with a lot of what's been said already

wordy
self-indulgent
tool

(I was actually more interested in the parts of the book having to do with the trial than the poker playing, but then again, curiosity about the Binions is what drove me to buy the book in the first place.)

I really thought he was trying too hard with this book - writing beyond his abilities. It's not that he can't write; he obviously can. It's just that it came off like he was trying way to hard to write a literary masterpiece, and ended up writing a parody of one instead.

[Easy E]

us old people have bad eyesight, so I might be wrong.

[Dominic]

to each his own. I enjoyed and found it to be a very pleasant, funny read. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

now his attitude on TV was a bit grumpy, granted, but you have to take into account the editing...

[cferejohn]

I'll just speak up as someone who really enjoyed Positively 5th Street. Otoh, I've probably been described by others as "wordy" (definitely), "self-indulgent" (probably), and even, yes, "tool"

[toots]

FWIW, I finally got around to watching last night's coverage of McManus' grouchfest, and I certainly didn't see any behavior on his part that wasn't consistent with the picture he drew of himself in the book.

"Disrespecting poker." What a tool.

[deacsoft]

I am amazed by the responses in this thread. I doubt that any of you know him personally (not that I do. which is exactly why I'm not going to pass judgement on the personality of someone I've never met). Say what you want about his book. It was a New York Times best seller. He's made a ton of money from it. I've read it and thought it was very well written. Even if some of the material was not necessary. I'm not a professional writer, but was a bit of an english/literature scolar through high school and college.

I'm just surprised that with the intelligence that occupies this forum some of us just haven't figured out that basing opinions on anything other than facts is just absurd. Not a day goes by that someone isn't calling some pro player or some writer names. No offense guys, but it's just sad. It's something I (and I would hope most others) can do without. Let's try to keep this a positive site and learning experience for every one.

[SnakeRat]

Making a joke about his tattoo IS based in fact.

Calling out some semi-maniac for raising in the dark is decidedly -EV and absurd.
His tattoo is absurd.

"Let's try to keep this a positive site and learning experience for every one."
Being critical and negative is part of the learning experience.

McManus needs to get a grip.

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
I am amazed by the responses in this thread. I doubt that any of you know him personally (not that I do. which is exactly why I'm not going to pass judgement on the personality of someone I've never met). Say what you want about his book. It was a New York Times best seller. He's made a ton of money from it. I've read it and thought it was very well written. Even if some of the material was not necessary. I'm not a professional writer, but was a bit of an english/literature scolar through high school and college.

I'm just surprised that with the intelligence that occupies this forum some of us just haven't figured out that basing opinions on anything other than facts is just absurd. Not a day goes by that someone isn't calling some pro player or some writer names. No offense guys, but it's just sad. It's something I (and I would hope most others) can do without. Let's try to keep this a positive site and learning experience for every one.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is impossible to resist responding to this post.

[ QUOTE ]
Say what you want about his book. It was a New York Times best seller. He's made a ton of money from it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, Danielle Steele is a Great Writer, too.

[ QUOTE ]
I've read it and thought it was very well written.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. That's a fact. As I have said, I didn't find the writing all that great, but I found the book generally entertaining, in large part because it's about a topic that interests me greatly.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not a professional writer, but was a bit of an english/literature scolar through high school and college.
[/quote/]


This is too easy. Never mind.


[ QUOTE ]
I'm just surprised that with the intelligence that occupies this forum some of us just haven't figured out that basing opinions on anything other than facts is just absurd. Not a day goes by that someone isn't calling some pro player or some writer names. No offense guys, but it's just sad. It's something I (and I would hope most others) can do without. Let's try to keep this a positive site and learning experience for every one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have any idea how pompously condescending this entire paragraph is? Not to be "sad," but being "intelligent" isn't the same as being a "scientist."

Intelligent people are entitled to opinions based upon anything they choose. Scientists must base their opinions upon facts. Empirical evidence is not a prerequisite for an opinion among lay-people.

Don't stroke people by telling them how "intelligent" you expect them to be, and then call them stupid.


Because I really expected more from a scolar.

[$DEADSEXE$]

I actually played in a ring NL game with him at Commerce in LA and he was a really nice guy given that random people kept asking him a ton of questions while he was playing.

sidenote--we had a guy who sat down at the table who was really wasted(he kept saying he was a Poker Grand Master??) and was making some really dumb moves and was a bit loud...and while he was annoying most the people at the table, McManus seemed extremely bothered by it.

So maybe he just can't take a rowdy player at the table, because he tilted big time after the guy busted his Ace's with runner runner 4's on him holding 4/7o.

[RPatterson]

Lol McManus can't handle Maniacs!

[Rjeeves]

I'm surprised to hear such a negative reaction to the guy. I found his book to be an enjoyable read. But more than that, his book has done a lot for the game. I'd argue that his text is in part responsible for the explosion in poker as of late.

Besides, i found myself nodding in agreement with his comments during the ESPN broadcast.