Re: authoritative

[CrisBrown]

Hi All,

El Diablo wrote in another thread:

[ QUOTE ]
The reason I've been involved in these threads is that precisely because Cris does write reasonably well and often with an authoritative tone, some readers tend to assume that what she writes is correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

If readers do indeed make that assumption, it's a very bad assumption indeed. David Duke could offer a very eloquent argument in favor of racism, but the eloquence of the argument doesn't make it any less absurd.

For the record, 99.999% of what I write in this particular forum -- as opposed to the strategy forums -- is purely for (my, and hopefully others') entertainment value. What I write in the strategy forums is different; then I'm giving my best understanding of the strategy of poker, and I'm very open to learning why and how that understanding is inadequate.

But here ... *shrugs* ... I just play. Sometimes that's arguing for argument's sake, or what I call "arguing for sport." Sometimes it's patent humor (e.g.: my predictions for the 2006 WSOP). Sometimes it's my off-the-cuff take on whatever televised tournament we're discussing. Sometimes it's 3am-and-I'm-bored-so-I'll-write-something-and-see-if-it's-intelligent-in-the-morning.

None of it is intended to be authoritative. I certainly don't consider myself to be an authority on anything except writing novels and criminal law (my former career). If my posts seem authoritative in tone, that's simply a relic of a my legal writing experience. No one should read any more than that into it, and they certainly shouldn't take my word for anything simply because I frame the words well.

Cris