Ray Zee, care to defend your accusations?

Ray,


Perhaps you have not yet revisited Mark Glover's 22 October 2001 thread entitled "My final post" since you made your latest fraud accusations. If that is the case, then maybe you will see this post and take this opportunity to try to defend your statements (or to apologize, if you feel they were wrong).


You wrote: "I hope you dont think you should tell someone that its ok to write a book for you and put your name on it and then act as if you totally wrote the book."


I guess you have some moral objection to ghost writers. I am curious what it might be.


You wrote: "in forums we tend to believe that the person we are conversing with are the same person who wrote the post."


Sometimes your beliefs are wrong. Were you harmed in a significant way by the revelation that the "Mark Glover" posts were a collaborative effort?


You wrote: "but having someone write it all as he said happens is in fact kinda like fraud when he has his name on it and it seemed he didnt even approve it."


All the posts I wrote under the "Mark Glover" name were approved by Mark. Perhaps you didn't have time to read Mark's final post in its entirety before making your accusation.


Some might argue it is intellectually dishonest to write a poker book that fails to include at least a bibliography to acknowledge sources you consulted. Perhaps you believe this is a silly notion; perhaps you don't. But it seems less silly than the objections you raised in this thread.

You sure are posting a lot for somebody who made his final post (I know. You're the editor, not Mark). And you're not even talking about poker. It would be nice if you stayed and posted a few hands or just analyzed other's hands but what's the point of taking up of this Forum's space with a personal conflict with other some other posters?


By the way, Ray Zee, didn't you make a post a few weeks ago and put Mason Malmuth's name on it? Mason made a joke about it because you mixed up the Subject and e-mail lines. Mason said:


"The above post was actually written by Ray Zee, but let's not make fun of him for being so stupid as not being able to get the subject and my email address on the right lines. However, the hand should prove interesting to discuss."


Was that the only time you've posted under someone else's name?

gl

What I don't understand is why do guys like this always have to write a final post? Why don't they just leave and be done with it?

I accidently nicked Ray on the lip when I was shaving him. This caused his speech to be slightly impaired(it wasn't sour mash). His editor's assisant(Jeb), who is also is his cousin's fishing instructor, was present. Ray said what sounded to my ear as, "Mark Glover is a freudian".


Jeb, who had bad hearing from wanton use of bear hunting rifles, wrote this down on the back of one those old GQ mags in my shop.


Later, Bubba spilt some of Auntie Mary's bitter coffee(who has the heart to tell her?) on the back of the GQ mag.


When Ray's editor's assistant's supervisor(Horace) came to retrieve said document, he took two mags, not just said document.


So was it the nick? The hearing loss? Bubba's bitter coffee? Horace?


Or is sometimes a cigar just a cigar?

If they "always have to write a final post,"...does that mean they can never leave, even if they want to? ;-) Sort of Lewis Carrol-like, somehow...a little twist that could almost have been added to The Mad Tea-Party...how many table-orbits could those four have completed by now anyway, I wonder, I wonder, I wonder...

of course i didnt write that post it was a joking thing. sometimes its hard to tell from the posters intentions. i do alot of stupid things and i dont understand why you got in the fray and are challenging me. and i dont post under someones elses name and if i did i would let it be known it was a joke and who it was from.

there is nothing wrong with getting help editing. but you also wrote whole posts for mark and mark took credit for them and acted like they came from him. so i stand by what i think. you obviously think diffently. thats why the world goes round. why dont you even say who you are, and where you are from. you are as bad as him and i give you less respect. am i adressing you or someone who wrote your post parading as you or are you the reeal mark glover. ha ha

Hi Mark Glover's Editor. You look strangely familiar /images/wink.gif Now that you're posting, and we can talk to you instead of "Mark" (Now, don't go telling us you were Mark after all or something! /images/glasses.gif ), I'm just wondering - may I ask you a couple of questions?

Ray,


Earlier, you wrote: "but having someone write it all as he said happens is in fact kinda like fraud when he has his name on it and it seemed he didnt even approve it."


It turned out you were wrong. "Mark" and I both approved all the posts that went out under the "Mark Glover" name. Rather than apologize for your false accusation, you opted to revise it.


So, you wrote: "but you also wrote whole posts for mark and mark took credit for them and acted like they came from him. so i stand by what i think."


There is no Mark Glover taking credit for anything. I already explained to you that "Mark Glover" does not exist. "Mark Glover" is a moniker we used to sign our collaborative posts. Sometimes one of us wrote whole posts, sometimes the other wrote whole posts, sometimes we both contributed to certain posts.


Neither of us are seeking fame; we both actually wish to remain anonymous. Neither of us are grabbing royalties. As far as I know, 2+2 does not pay royalties for posts on this forum. Both of us benefited from from our collaborative arrangment, and some forum readers might have benefited as well. Did our arrangment harm you in some significant way?


If you are going to stand by what you think, then what do you think about David Sklansky apparently taking full credit for THE THEORY OF POKER?


In 1983, that book was entitled WINNING POKER, was written by David Sklansky with Roger Dionne, and was published by Prentice-Hall. By 1987, the book was renamed THE THEORY OF POKER, with full authorship credited soley to David Sklansky, and published by Two Plus Two. As Mason recently explained to Gary Carson, the two books only had minor differences.


I don't have enough information to call David a fraud, but that doesn't seem to be an impediment to you. Are you still willing to stand by what you think?


If you believe signing collaborative posts with the "Mark Glover" nick is such a heinous act, what do you think of the lack of bibliographies in many 2+2 books?

"There is no Mark Glover taking credit for anything. I already explained to you that "Mark Glover" does not exist."


I may have missed that post. Where did you explain it?

You gave the very clear impression that someone named "Mark Glover" was writing posts. People responded, believing they were interacting with one person, not some commmittee. In essence you lied. "Fraud" - hmmm, yeah, seems to fit.


But then, maybe lying is easier to rationalize when carried out by committee.


Btw, do you know the name for the specious argumnent technique you're using in trying to point to some possible deception by Sklansky? Actually, it seems more than specious, given that I you likely know nothing about it.

Also, since there is no "Mark Glover", isn't "Mark Glover's Editor" a bit misleading? Wasn't "Mark"'s last post, in which he thanked his "editor", and explained his allowing "you" to post for him, etc., more than a bit misleading? Why don't you either come clean and quit the lying, or just cut your losses?

he'll have to ask mark if it is ok...

Gee, who's not getting the joke now?


I bought your High-Low-Split book. Interesting reading even though I only play split games for fun on-line. Do you really have to charge $34.95 for it, though?

amazing you needed to combine forces to post about stuff like typos. just as amazing - even combining forces you were unable to eliminate the distracting pompous tone. phffft... get help from a paid consultant?

Now the question is why they couldn't make their final post their final post. Looks like they've done nothing but post ever since their "final" post. Maybe they re-voted. /images/wink.gif

You should see the damage to Ray's toe when I was reading the article.


I will never mix pleasure with business again!

I wrote the post in question. After I wrote it I saw that I had reversed the subject with my name. So instead of deleting it I thought I would have a little fun and say that Ray wrote it.


As for the retail cost of his book, he has nothing to do with setting the price. The suggested retail price is mainly my decision.

"As far as I know, 2+2 does not pay royalties for posts on this forum."


Royalties for posting on these forums come in the form of expert advice from many expert players who participate. That's why when you and your buddy, or is it when you and your editor, or is it when your editor and you clog up these forums with lots of footnotes complaining about commas being out of place you not only hurt yourselves but you hurt everyone else who participates. So your cute little arrangement did harm many of our sincere and legitimate posters.


"In 1983, that book was entitled WINNING POKER, was written by David Sklansky with Roger Dionne, and was published by Prentice-Hall. By 1987, the book was renamed THE THEORY OF POKER, with full authorship credited solely to David Sklansky, and published by Two Plus Two. As Mason recently explained to Gary Carson, the two books only had minor differences."


The original version of this book was in fact written solely by David. It was entitled Sklansky on Poker Theory. Subsequently the English was improved by Roger Dionne but he added no new concepts. To be frank he never deserved to be mentioned on the title page in the way that he was ("with Roger Dionne"). It was done simply as a temporary favor to Roger by David.


"what do you think of the lack of bibliographies in many 2+2 books?"


In some of my books I give reference to other authors at the appropriate point in the book. However in the other books where no bibliography or references to other authors appear it is because all the work is original.

who Mark's pappy is? Sorry couldn't resist adding to the non poker bandwidth.

. . . you do not exist.


If Mark Glover does not exist, Mark Glover cannot have an editor.


Q.E.D.

John,


Earlier, I told Ray: "There is no Mark Glover taking credit for anything. I already explained to you that 'Mark Glover' does not exist."


You asked: "I may have missed that post. Where did you explain it?"


"Since he preferred to remain anonymous (including his IP address), Mark sent his material to me, and I posted it on this forum." ("Clarifying my role," 23 October 2001.)


"Mark Glover" is just a nickname we used to sign our collaborative posts. It was used for purposes of anonymity. The "Mark Glover" on the 2+2 forum does not exist in the form of a real person--only as a moniker.

as I recall, some of his posts did have interesting ideas, BUT the thing I most remember is that there allways seemed to be a strong arguementative ( if that's a word??) element.


now I wonder if that was mark, or the editor since his stuff is loaded that way.


it may be best if they go their way and let us get back to poker

Unglover: There is no Mark Glover taking credit for anything. I already explained to you that 'Mark Glover' does not exist.


John: I may have missed that post. Where did you explain it?


Unglover cites their earlier comment: Since he preferred to remain anonymous (including his IP address), Mark sent his material to me, and I posted it on this forum." ("Clarifying my role," 23 October 2001.) (emphasis added)


Um, how does this reference to "Mark" suggest he does not exist? It looks more like an assertion of his existence.


I don't care if he exists or not. But don't try to bolster your argument by claiming you had already explained this, when you hadn't.


Btw, it matters little that "Mark Glover" was an alias. Many probably assumed it was all along. No one really cares if you post under an alias. That is not the issue.


Since your "final" post (the title of which I suspect even you will agree is pretty funny in retrospect :-) you have consistently talked of this "person" as something akin to the head writer, boss, mentor, and the one from whom the ideas in the "Mark Glover" posts came (decreasingly so as time went on). Obviously people are going to see "him" as "taking credit" for the material. But now you say there is no "Mark Glover", no person taking credit, just a pair (evidently) of people posting collaboratively. Then I suppose the comments in your "final post", and your "clarifying my role" post, for example, were essentially a lie. Maybe the references to sending posts to a friend, to an editor who was a "conduit" for Mark, etc. were all just a lie. Is that about right? So just let us know at what post the lies stopped and the truth began. That might clear up some confusion.


Finally, Ray called you "a fraud." According to my Webster's Collegiate you clearly are. I don't understand why you object to something so apparent.

what this fracas is about. This mob mentality is a strange thing. I'm surprised no one has screamed "GET A ROPE".


Tom D

check the archives. go back and read a couple of years worth of glover posts and you'll have a clue. having seen his threads in the archives I'd say the reactions here have really been pretty restrained. whoever's been posting under the glover name has without a doubt been one of the most arrogant, self-important, insulting people here.


anyone debating them (and it seems like it was hard just to discuss with them... they usually came with the insults) was unknowingly debating a team. this deception went on for years, then they fill their supposed final post and several that followed with more decptions and untruths. no one's saying get a rope. this is just a discussion site, and people just type their thoughts. but imo what people have said has been pretty mild compared to glover's constant b.s.


what's really amazing is that even as a team they usually couldn't come up with much better than taking jabs about typos in books or picking nits about some little detail in wording.

Actually, I'm sure I read most of his posts when they were posted, and I enjoyed them very much. For one thing, they were very well thought out, and very well written. I appreciated that. I don't care if Mark Glover was really two people or ten, and I don't understand why anyone else would.


You said you found him to be arrogant. You may be right, but he captured that tone so elegantly. I found him to be humorous, and he captured that well too. I wish I could write like that. In any case, I enjoyed being treated to such artful posts.


Tom D

"Actually, I'm sure I read most of his posts when they were posted"


yet you had no clue what this fracas was about. hmmm...


obviously you may be joking, but i'll respond as if you're serious. yes indeed many of his posts were well thought out. but they were usually about with such simple, self evident topics that anyone could produce the same sort of thing. it's just not very hard to write a well thought out post about something like a typo. i guess for some they were interesting. to each his own.


as for elegance, well, he wrote like a robot. i suppose that has a certain elegance. whatever.

Tom -- Did you ever personally try to discuss anything with "Mark"? For many here it was near impossible as he/they would never back down, and were relentless with sarcasm and condescention. I did get him/them to see where he was wrong once, by sticking with him through post after post, re-explaining and clarifying in a loooong thread. But despite having responded to me all through the thread with the usual sarcasm and such, he offered no apology at all, and resumed the same level of sarcasm and condescention as soon as our paths crossed again. I never saw him admit being wrong about anything again.


Yet despite his inability to concede any point, and his condescending, and seemingly authoritative tone, he would rail about the dangers of accepting too readily the opinions of "authorities." He wrote in a way that would seem to ask people to see him as a supreme authority, while constantly decrying acceptance of authority. This I found hypocritical, and more reflective of narcissisism than any true desire to promote independent thought. (Fascinating that this was apparently the product of pair or a group.)


On one or two occasions I asked "him" if he'd like to email me so we could look at things in more detail. No response. Once I even offered to call him and talk something out on the phone (on my tab), since I felt it would be much more efficient for the topic we were dealing with. Again, no response. "He" simply continued with the same tone. I don't think he was really interested in exploring anything openly, only in *presenting* his views. And he often did this by dissecting a line in a book, showing how it was "wrong" - *if* you interpreted it in a hyper-literal way, when no reasonable reader would read it that way.


I know you're not the only person who has liked his stuff. And I'm not saying it had no merit. But maybe your view comes in part from not having had to look at it as closely as those who have gotten more directly involved with "him." Just a guess.


The issue of him being more than one person is something different, but I've gone on long enough. Maybe some other time.