Dave S. Enough Please

[Mayhap]

Oh yes,
Antisceptically compartmentalize this forum. Scrub away the grime of off-topicness. That is surely the formula to give it more richness and depth.
/M

[elwoodblues]

I post most often in the "Other Topics" forums. There is no reason to have off-topic discussions in other forums because of the availability of the off topics area.

Me personal opinion is that by having one of the main operators of the site post in an off-topic way (I note that you aren't disagreeing that it is off-topic, but rather that you think it really doesn't matter) the operators are making a big mistake. If you don't want to follow the categories, don't have them. If you don't think that Psychology belongs under "general gambling" change it. But when there is a forum that actually fits this discussion (other other other other other topics) then post there.

[ QUOTE ]
That is surely the formula to give it more richness and depth.


[/ QUOTE ]

When you categorize the topics you want the depth to be on-topic, not off topic. Depth and richness are a good thing. Depth and richness outside the scope of the forum isn't. If I started posts on sheep farming, it would certainly add depth and richness, but not the kind that improves the forum.

Just my 2+2 cents.

[CountDuckula]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
believe religion deserves to be in the psychology forum because the specific beliefs of any particular religion are so obviously farfetched that there must be a psycholigical syndrome that makes some people believe in them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course that doesn't address the issue at all. Religion is a Psychology topic. Religion is not a gambling psychology topic. As you know, the Forums are organized by categories...psychology comes under General Gambling. In other words, if it doesn't relate to the physchology of gambling it is off topic. (Just as News, Views, Gossip should be gambling related news, views, gossip...just as one small stakes forum deals with Limit and one deals with Pot-Limit & No Limit.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, in a way, it is gambling. You're gambling that you've picked the correct Gawd/s to believe in, and that He/She/It/They will reward you for doing so. Pick the wrong one (or opt out of the game, according to some), and you lose. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

-Mike

[elwoodblues]

And sheep farming is about gambling because you are risking a catastrophic illness that will wipe out the herd (or is it flock) and you have to factor that likelihood into your pricing decisions.

[CountDuckula]

By Jove, I think you've got it! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

-Mike

[tek]

If I was selling a product, I wouldn't risk pissing off customer or potential customers on my message boards.

Instead I would find an outside forum dedicated to political or religious discussion.

[tek]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, no matter what label a person wears wittingly or unwittingly, Christian, Agnostic, Buddhist, Atheist, Sceptic ...
There is one common thread:
We are all looking for answers.

[/ QUOTE ]

You shouldn't say words such as All, None, Always, Never, Every, etc. All it takes is one example to refute your argument.

For example, I am NOT looking for answers about god ro the universe. I couldn't care less what created the universe. I just do my thing. If more people did that, the world might be a better place... [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
If I was selling a product, I wouldn't risk pissing off customer or potential customers on my message boards.

Instead I would find an outside forum dedicated to political or religious discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]


A business policy I learned very early in life is that once you are doing well enough in business, a +EV play is often to annoy people, as it helps refresh and revitalize you, and whatever monies you may (but probably won't) lose are replaced by the extra money you generate via that new and improved mindset.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com

[IronUnkind]

"I believe religion deserves to be in the psychology forum because the specific beliefs of any particular religion are so obviously farfetched that there must be a psycholigical syndrome that makes some people believe in them."

This is the sort of uninspired critique that I've come to expect from your religion posts. Do you have anything to offer on the topic other than ham-handed koans and specious mathematics? Or is smug street-psychology your new racket? How disappointing that you've proven to be such an inept caviler in these matters; I've always regarded you as a gifted thinker.

[Duke]

I'll respond to your point in general.

He's making a point simply because it's valid. He doesn't care one way or the other what people think, just like he doesn't care one way or the other if anyone learns anything from him about poker. It seems as if his only duty, as he sees it, is to make the thought processes available for scrutiny, and then to leave you on your own.

If he were more of a politician bent on selling more books, well, I think he'd keep his views to himself regarding religion. But I don't think he cares. I think he cares about saying what he sees as sensible whoever it might anger. If he wanted to get the ideas into circulation I'm sure he could find me at the Bellagio sometime and just spit ideas at me. I could introduce them into this system and he could watch them play out. That would be a more diplomatic solution.

I think it's disturbing to think that any ridiculous notion is legitimized the second you stamp it with the religion label. Who says something should mean next to nothing when it comes to discerning its worth.

~D