Re: I\'m very sorry
 

[ QUOTE ]
Good. Paul Phillips is a big jerk anyway... even geniouses (not saying that he is one) need to learn how to play nicely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, the irony.

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

Editing my posts are ye? Not very kind.

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

I was just in the middle of a huge explanation, and because of one major flaw in our new software, my post was erased.

I'll consider that fate, and put this up instead: 702-353-8844. That's my cell phone. I don't type very fast, otherwise I'd start over, but I don't know if most people expressing strong opinions on this matter really feel that way, or if this is just a little bit of entertainment. If Paul or anyone else who feels super-strongly about this issue want to call me, feel free.

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

[ QUOTE ]
Editing my posts are ye? Not very kind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha.

vnh.

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

Posted by mbraudel:
[ QUOTE ]
I rarely post; nobody here will miss me. I won't even pretend that your advertisers will notice that I've stopped clicking through from your web site.

And I'm out of here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Posted by istewart:
[ QUOTE ]
Holy [censored], mbraudel, you're [censored] LEAVING MAN???

Wow... never thought I'd see this day.

Holy [censored] it's the JFK assassination all over again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this supposed to be funny? mbraudel was clearly not implying that these boards would suffer in content from his departure. He's making the point that there are many who do a lot of reading but not a lot of posting, and large numbers of these folks will be so offended by TPT's conduct that they will not visit the site anymore. That's reduced traffic. Reduced revenue.

Sure, it doesn't affect you (but judging strictly by the number of your posts, you do more talking than listening anyway). But if you think that reduced traffic is insignificant to TPT, I have a strong suspicion that you suck at business.

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't type very fast, otherwise I'd start over, but I don't know if most people expressing strong opinions on this matter really feel that way, or if this is just a little bit of entertainment. If Paul or anyone else who feels super-strongly about this issue want to call me, feel free.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've had the software abduct a post or two of mine as well; that sucks. But I don't intend to call you -- and judging by the volume of readers in this thread, getting through might be unrealistic anyway. I'm hoping you can find the time to offer the response you were working on.

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

Notice how I get criticised when I don't say a word. I must be important even on Paul Phillips blog.

From Tom Bayes to Paul Phillips.

"Paul,
Since I am not a well-known poker figure, does that mean I am allowed to indulge in trolling, rude behavior, trashing of "TV poker players", posts devoid of content, and the like? Or are those rights reserved for the moderators, nuts like Vincent Lepore and their sockpuppets and the gimmick posters? "

Vince

Re: One owner who sets explicit rules for use of private property.
 

Both points are incidental to owner's assertion of private property rights and owner's enforcement of clearly stated and simple ground rules.

Owner is well within bounds of ground rules; visitor is not and then gets dramatic. Use of the service is 100% at the owner's pleasure, per ground rules.

Owner plays by the stated rules and even shows courtesy by providing outs to visitor; visitor shows utter disrespect of both owner and owner-provided outs.

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

You wrote:
[ QUOTE ]
However, isn't it likely that the reason Paul was banned was a result of this violation of expected privacy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason's email says:
[ QUOTE ]
Paul, we are considering granting your wish of never allowing you to post here again. You need to appologize, first to us privately, and then to the forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given the available evidence, it is very likely that Mason banned Paul because Mason said he was going to ban Paul. Your explanation, while slightly less petty, is certainly not "likely".

Ed Miller then summarized the situation thusly:
[ QUOTE ]
Paulp compared the owner of the website to a Nazi. The owner banned him.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is technically true, but leads the reader to false conclusions. Paulp had been told that he would be banned long before comparisons to nazis were involved.

As such, I stand by my assertion that willfully or otherwise, you guys are being dishonest with us. If you don't like the accusation, I suggest you stop pretending that all of 2+2s actions were good ones.

Re: I\'m very sorry
 

i couldn't care less about paul phillips being banned (even though i perferred that he wasn't) but he is right, the censorship at 2+2 blows. what blows even more at 2+2 are moderators and other members w/ a million posts running around like what they have to say is more important than others, losers. go ahead and keep banning people, anyone that actually gives a crap needs a kick in the nuts anyway. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]