Welcome back, Abdul!

We can hope, anyway.


Will Mat Sklansky, the new forum moderator, review (and perhaps reverse) Malmuth's decisions to ban Abdul, QuadNines, Badger, Carson, and others?


If so, then I think the potential quality and diversity of discussion will increase greatly.

it would be nice to have Abdul back, yes. the others? hmmm...


btw, were you aware that badger and carson each asked to have all of their posts here deleted? that was what led to whatever barring or self-barring took place.

Mason is still my boss. I wasn't moderating the forums or even reading them much while he was here, but I am not in a position to reverse Mason's decisions. I do know that I have only deleted two posts snce I started doing this, and I understand that the current civility on this site is strongly correlated with Abdul's absence.

"..review (and perhaps rescind) Malmuth's decision to ban Abdul, Quad Nines, Badger, Carson, and others?"


My understanding is that about two years ago, Steve Badger requested that all of his posts be deleted and he threaten to sue 2+2 if this was not done. Carson jumped on the bandwagon and asked that all his posts be deleted as well. 2+2 agreed to do this with the understanding that these guys would not be posting anymore on 2+2. Bottom line is that Badger and Carson do not want to have anything of thiers posted on 2+2. I am not sure it if fair to say that "Mason banned these guys" given what they requested.


With regard to Abdul, I believe Mason has stated that Abdul can post on 2+2 as long as thier are no personal attacks involved and that only poker be discussed.


I am not aware of the situation with Quadnines (Mark Glover re-named).


Can someone please straighten me out in this regard? Are my facts wrong?

Mark Glover used to have some of the most brilliant work posted on here.

In addition to that he did used to criticise Sklansky and Malmuth's writings seemingly for the fun of it. Sometimes he had good points, sometimes he was obviously just deriding them. He and Vince didn't get along either after Vince started defending Sklansky without any real mathematics either. I used to think that it was all quite funny, although I don't think Sklansky, Vince, Mason and Mark did. He didn't deserve to get banned though for stuffing around with different points of view, even though it was sometimes deliberately making fun of Mason and Sklansky.


I did see Mark do some silly stuff with this board too unrelated to poker. He created a lot of garbage posts to try and make life hard for Mason when he was deleting the posts. I suspect that our Mark Glover may even be a teenager, just being silly with a warped sense of what's fun, but I don't know for sure. Around that time Mark Glover said he was in fact more than one person, which offended some people also. If he stops being silly then he should be allowed back.


He won't ever stop criticizing Sklansky and Malmuth though. They will find him hard to live with even if he is allowed back.

Agree except with the first line. I never saw anything brilliant or insightful in his posts. But they were very meticulous, almost squeeky if that makes any sense. I think that must have made them appear more substantive than they were.

What Abdul did ?

He could post here under an other nick and nobody will know , right !?

Mason has told me that Abdul may return if he promises to limit his posts to discussions on poker. This simply means that he refrain from making personal insults.

much the same as I could have composed music under another name and nobody would notice.

Mozart's music has some "tells," as does Abdul's writing. I imagine there are experts in both fields that could discern them, n'est-ce pas?

He would have to find another computer and another ISP as well I suspect. I am guessing that a site can block out all input from a given URL and ISP.

I was never in favor of banning Mark Glover or anyone else for that matter. I hate Mark Glover because he is smarter than me, that's all!


Vince

"I never saw anything brilliant or insightful in his posts"


The biggest problem with Mark Glovers posts were that they were not very useful to an aspiring winning poker player. They were for the most part designed to toss a dark cloud on Sklansky and/or Mason. I was accused of attacking him without using math to back up my claims. That's true. My opinions are not based totally in math. Although, I do appreciate the need for math and logic in playing poker. My opinions are based more often that not on my experience. My opinion about Mark Glover is that has rarely played poker in a Casino environment. Believe it or not technical aspects of poker can be learned from a book. I believe that is the extent of his poker knowledge, book learning.


Vince

This isn't a world where being smarter is better anyway Vince. A football player will earn in a year what some "smart" people earn in a lifetime.


Even used car salesman can earn more than smart people too.


I'm sure you have plenty of other qualities to make up for not being as smart as Mark Glover.

Are you insinuating that footballers and used car salesmen are thick??