08-30-2005, 12:28 AM
Citanul,
I logged on tonight to sadly find all discussion in my thread had ceased--alas, it had been locked. As you can clearly see my response did arrive 7 months late, yet I fail to see why its date has any relevance whatsover. 2500 years ago Aristotle questioned himself: What is the good life? And we continue trying to answer this question up to this very day. I didn't know that there were time limits on this forum. And as you can see I only registered for this forum today, and was only made aware of this post a couple of weeks ago. I created a new thread because I felt that, frankly, it would garner more attention. I'm not sure how many people go back and click 7 month old threads when they pop up. And just to clear something up: I have never posted on this forum prior to today, under this nor any other handle.
You remind me that the golden rule of internet message boards is that no one forced me to read the post, and you are 100% correct. But you know what? I did read it. And just the same as if I read a thread promoting racism in America or a revival of Nazism in Europe, I decided to speak out against something I disagree with. Clearly I am not proposing to compare Gigabet's post to a pro-Nazi post, but I bring up the example to question you--if you read such a post would you not feel compelled to speak out against it? Even though no one FORCED you to read it? And so I have to frankly disagree with you that I can get upset with other people for voicing their opinions, as my example above attests to.
And as you can probably tell, I feel like I did have a valid point to make. I just didn't like the way that Gigabet presented poker. To me he seemed to make it seem like a win-win situation for everyone involved, and clearly this is not the case. I just wanted to bring up the fact that there are losers in this game as well--and necesairly so, I might add. That's just the way the game is, and I am completely fine with that, I just don't like to read what I consider distortions of the truth (such as Gigabet's post, in my opinion).
I am particularly befuddled when you say that I am false in my claim that everyone respects Gigabet because he is the biggest winner. To be honest, I am very curious, if not for this reason, than for what reason do you respect him? He may make helpful contributions to this forum, but if that is the case, the contributions are inherently so helpful because he is a great poker player to begin with. In other words, a mediocre poker player can put a ton of effort into this forum, answering questions, posing problems, etc., yet his contributions will not be 1/100th as valuable as those of Gigabet, simply because Gigabet is a great player, and therefore has especially insightful comments to make. People read Garry Kasparov's chess games because he is one of the greatest chess players ever, not because he is an especially dashing Russian, or a great family man. There is nothing wrong with respecting Gigabet for being a great poker player, personally I show great reverence to talented men, whether they be authors, film makers, artists, or poker players. I fail to understand why me pointing out the reason for the respect he garners means that I have a "flaw in the understanding of basic social dynamics." Perhaps you could elucidate this for me?
Basically I was just a little confused when you closed my post. I am trying to be as rational here as possible. I can only hope that you don't consider these the words of a "raving lunatic."
I logged on tonight to sadly find all discussion in my thread had ceased--alas, it had been locked. As you can clearly see my response did arrive 7 months late, yet I fail to see why its date has any relevance whatsover. 2500 years ago Aristotle questioned himself: What is the good life? And we continue trying to answer this question up to this very day. I didn't know that there were time limits on this forum. And as you can see I only registered for this forum today, and was only made aware of this post a couple of weeks ago. I created a new thread because I felt that, frankly, it would garner more attention. I'm not sure how many people go back and click 7 month old threads when they pop up. And just to clear something up: I have never posted on this forum prior to today, under this nor any other handle.
You remind me that the golden rule of internet message boards is that no one forced me to read the post, and you are 100% correct. But you know what? I did read it. And just the same as if I read a thread promoting racism in America or a revival of Nazism in Europe, I decided to speak out against something I disagree with. Clearly I am not proposing to compare Gigabet's post to a pro-Nazi post, but I bring up the example to question you--if you read such a post would you not feel compelled to speak out against it? Even though no one FORCED you to read it? And so I have to frankly disagree with you that I can get upset with other people for voicing their opinions, as my example above attests to.
And as you can probably tell, I feel like I did have a valid point to make. I just didn't like the way that Gigabet presented poker. To me he seemed to make it seem like a win-win situation for everyone involved, and clearly this is not the case. I just wanted to bring up the fact that there are losers in this game as well--and necesairly so, I might add. That's just the way the game is, and I am completely fine with that, I just don't like to read what I consider distortions of the truth (such as Gigabet's post, in my opinion).
I am particularly befuddled when you say that I am false in my claim that everyone respects Gigabet because he is the biggest winner. To be honest, I am very curious, if not for this reason, than for what reason do you respect him? He may make helpful contributions to this forum, but if that is the case, the contributions are inherently so helpful because he is a great poker player to begin with. In other words, a mediocre poker player can put a ton of effort into this forum, answering questions, posing problems, etc., yet his contributions will not be 1/100th as valuable as those of Gigabet, simply because Gigabet is a great player, and therefore has especially insightful comments to make. People read Garry Kasparov's chess games because he is one of the greatest chess players ever, not because he is an especially dashing Russian, or a great family man. There is nothing wrong with respecting Gigabet for being a great poker player, personally I show great reverence to talented men, whether they be authors, film makers, artists, or poker players. I fail to understand why me pointing out the reason for the respect he garners means that I have a "flaw in the understanding of basic social dynamics." Perhaps you could elucidate this for me?
Basically I was just a little confused when you closed my post. I am trying to be as rational here as possible. I can only hope that you don't consider these the words of a "raving lunatic."