Mason, you can start turning this into something huge like "attacks on personal integrity", as I have seen you do so many times before with other writers - if you say things like "books you
claim to have read", in addition to some of the other things you have already said, then I don't feel at all like I am the bad guy here. I know it's your tactic to always try to give anyone who is remotely critical the feeling they have done something incredibly bad, but without any real arguments to back things up this doesn't look too strong to me. With all due respect, but I have seen these same patterns a couple of times before: Someone criticizing something by 2+2, you replying "you are so wrong", the person replying why he thinks he is correct and therefore the 2+2 information in his view is wrong or incomplete, and you coming over the top with "This is a personal attack!"
As in previous posts, you avoid the answers to specific questions. You avoided giving me a specific answer, when I asked you clearly: Do you think that tells have no value whatsoever in small-stakes games, or
do they have any value? You replied by referring to previous works, without giving a simple answer to this question. And in another post, there was someone who said that 2+2 works shouldn't
always be treated as gospel, because sometimes the advice in two different works clearly contradicts each other - and again, this poster specifically referred to the books / essays in question. Again you didn't answer though, but instead chose to reply with "Harrington on Hold'em 2 will be out soon" - not really an answer to his question, I would say.
Rolf Slotboom
www.rolfslotboom.com