[tipperdog]

To two gentlemen deserving of respect,

Mason:

You have shown a consistent pattern of blowing criticism way out of proportion, and ironically, accusing others of personal attacks when your own comments just as nasty, if not more so.

Example 1:
[ QUOTE ]

I sure hope that no one here takes any of the Slotboom ratings and his advice too seriously. In my opinion he is just very confused on poker and how to play it well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ouch. Don't you think a different tone is warranted here? Note that Ed admitted that Rolf had made a fair point in his column and thanked him for his positive review. You say he's a confused person who shouldn't be taken seriously!

Example 2:

[/ QUOTE ]
As I suggested to the other poster, you need to reread the subchapter "Use Tells Cautiously in Large Pots" starting on page 246. (I am assuming you read it but just didn't understand it. You did read this before writing your book review?)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm assuming you read it, but didn't understand it?! That's simultaneously an attack on integrity and intellect (you're implying he didn't read it, and if he did, he lacks the brainpower to understand). Again, unduly nasty.

Examples #3 & #4: Not going to quote from the boards here, but when Daniel Negraneau called David Sklansky "Daveyboy" in a post, you reacted as though he had called him a [censored] [censored] [censored]. And what Rolf wrote "how could David know about 3/6..." you accused him of a personal attack. I agree that both Daniel and Rolf should have chosen their words more carefully. However, in each instance, your answer was overblown.

Rolf:

1. Mason is correct that your book reviews are far too generous. Your "overgrading" inhibits your ability to distinguish between titles. My favorite example is Phil's Play like the Pros book. Virtually everyone I know agrees that his limit HE approach is a fundamentally losing strategy. I believe that you agree also. Such a book cannot be recommended under any circumstances! (Mason's "split" review addresses this issue somewhat). Let's face it, some books are zeros.

2. Mason is fundamentally correct to challenge your comments about David's 3/6 ability. You aren't in any kind of position to know whether or not David plays 3/6 online in his research time. I believe Mason's response was way out of proportion, but the criticism itself is valid. Big word alert: Yours was an ad hominum attack, and that's bad.

Why can't we all get along?