The Funniest Net Kook (QuadNines)

QuadNines on RGP is such a caricature, sometimes it gets hilarious to see his obsession with catching others’ “errors.” Only a bona fide net kook could be so persistent. In his current RGP thread an alert poster calls him on incorrectly accusing Sklansky of implying that correlation was the same as causation. Never willing to admit being wrong (has he... ever?), the Quad thing falls back on the ploy we all learned as 7-year-olds. You know, the one you use when the meaning of your statement is accurately conveyed by your challenger, but his quote is not precisely and exactly word for word the way you said it. He says, ‘I never said that,’ which, taken precisely word for word, he didn’t, though he obviously did with slightly different wording... Funny to see a (presumably?) grown man falling back on this sort of silliness.


But then he tops himself. Afraid of being trapped in his own net, he anticipates his challenger’s turning his tactic back on him. The other poster says,


“But don't attribute those conclusions to the original author.”


Quaddy counters with,


“I didn't. (And, yes, I realize you never explicitly said that I did.)”


Funny stuff. Well, to those of us with sort of warped senses of humor.


Hey Quad, he never said you didn’t realize he never said you did!

"Funny to see a (presumably?) grown man falling back on this sort of silliness."


I'd seriously doubt if he was a grown man. Seems more like a 12 year old w/ no original ideas of his own.


Ryan

"w/ no original ideas of his own."


Hmm, that's true. It's easy to find some imperfect sentence wording that makes a writer's point "wrong" on an absolute technical level. Much harder to contribute anything even slightly original of your own. Quadnines just arm-chair-quarterbacks. Haven't seen anything else from him. Maybe it's like those who can do, those who can't become critics.

I remember years ago hearing that movie critic Rex Reed had a role in "Myra Breckenridge." From what I heard, he fell in line with your last sentence.

While Quads' nitpicking is downright ridiculous, it's incorrect to say that he has never offered anything original. For example, I recall that he put up a 3 or 4 part series of posts on EV that was excellent.


As well, when reading his posts, there is little doubt that the man is extremely intelligent and knows his poker. It's just too bad that he wastes his intelligence on ensuring that other poker authorities cross their T's and dot their I's.

David and I (and Ray) actually like to be challenged and have our ideas questioned. That's because we feel we know our stuff and can handle anything that comes our way. Also, we are players, and if someone can show us an improved way to think about an aspect of poker we benefit. That's why we encourage vigorous debate on these forums and are always amazed by the high quality of information exchange.


But Quad Nines/Mark Glover/Mar Glover's editior or what his real name is, didn't do this. He was clearly just trying to bog things down and not contribute anything. What motivates someone to be like this is beyond me. Anyway, I'm not so convinced that Quad Nines is very entertaining. But one thing for sure. He is much more entertaining on RGP than he is here.


Best wishes,

Mason

I remember his posts on EV. True, it was one thing that wasn’t just a pompous reaction to what someone else has written - about the only such thing he’s posted that I’ve seen. I think he posted it as a reaction to someone else complaining about his lack of original contribution. But it’s terribly generous to call it “original.” It was just a drawn out explanation of the well known concept of expected value. His examples expanded it to several posts. I guess for someone unfamiliar with the concept of EV it could have been helpful, though less so than the far more succinct explanations in most stats and probability texts, and the clearer discussions in others’ (Abdul for one) posts.


Not that many posters come up with really profound, original stuff. But short of that, has he ever even speculated about any alternative strategic idea? (Something you do all the time.) Has he ever taken a risk by posing an idea he’s unsure of? Has he ever even asked an intriguing question, looking for others’ input? Rarely if ever, it seems. Seems to me one ought to engage in some sort of attempt at original thought before one has the “right” to haughtily nitpick others who lead the way by doing so.

"He's much more entertaining on RGP than he is here."


Now there's a sentence that could be read more than one way.


John