Who the [censored] is John Bond?

[Mat Sklansky]

This is becoming ridiculous. John Bond is clearly making a great effort to promote himself and Cooke. This username has the identical ip address as John's, so I assume it is him.

This username has been banned and John Bond may find himself banned shortly as well, not because I'm trying to censor him, but because him and this topic are becoming a pain in my ass.

Mat

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm really sure I'm right -- but if I'm wrong I apologize.

[/ QUOTE ]

"What we have here is failure to ..comunicate" What John Bond is saying for those of you having trouble interpreting his lawyereze is this:
"Mason, you are a liar!"

Vince

[JohnBond]

[ QUOTE ]
This is becoming ridiculous. John Bond is clearly making a great effort to promote himself and Cooke. This username has the identical ip address as John's, so I assume it is him.

This username has been banned and John Bond may find himself banned shortly as well, not because I'm trying to censor him, but because him and this topic are becoming a pain in my ass.

Mat

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure which topic is a pain inyour ass, Mat, there are so many to choose from. If it's the removal of the Cooke Book post you have nobody but Mason and yourself to blame for that, not me.

As to your other comment ... I'd be surprised if you actually have an IP match --- but even so, you are correct in your general proposition nonetheless.

Int. Day: Little kid caught with hand in cookie jar looks around the room innocently.

Sigh. I hate being a dummy.

I stopped in to visit 2+2 when I heard that Roy’s post from rpg had been posted over here and was getting some following. I knew that given Mason’s feelings towards RC that he would undoubtedly smack Roy around and further anything I said would get leaned on by Mason, perhaps or even probably unreasonably. (I might note that his posts of the past two weeks have borne me out on this initial fear.)

So I came with two strategies. First, I was committed to make every effort to treat Mason as courteously as I could manage no matter how unreasonable he might be. I hoped that would defuse things. And while hope is the most ennobling and uplifting human emotion, alas not all hopes come to fruition.

Secondly, I created another screen name, (Seahorse) one that could say things without the baggage of being associated with me and my friendship for Roy. One that could ask questions that might be weighed on their own merit, without regard for their source. A voice which in my mind would be reasonable and neutral, and not be affected in any way by past history or particularly bothered by comments which had their roots in past history.

I also considered coming on under a name other than my own altogether, but decided that would be a bigger deception, and that the second screen name would be the lesser of evils. Frankly I didn’t plan to use it as much as I did and I got carried away.

For what it’s worth, it was Seahorse’s questions that got Mason to admit that many of Russ’s accusations about the distant past are true, that some (though not most) of his accusations about big names are true, and to answer cogently and in depth about problems with tournament poker. I tend to disagree with Mason about cash games, but see his point. Mason has still failed to say anything meaningful about Internet cheating, (despite Seahorse’s prodding)except perhaps through Vince who posits that people who play Party are too stupid to care if they are cheated (as if that should make any difference even if it were true, which it clearly isn’t) and that the failure of sites or their sokesman to speak up about cheating on their sites more openly is somehow dispositive that no such cheating exists.

Also for what it’s worth, the post about Roy’s books, while having a bit of puffery was certainly not an ad (as noted you can’t even buy the damn books) and was far less egregious an act of self-promotion than other posts that could be considered advertising which have historically been allowed to stand. I’m as certain as I was that Mat did not take it down of his own accord, but was advised, directed, at least encouraged by Mason to do so.

I happen to really believe that the owners of boards can do what they want, and don’t need to justify their actions. They can delete what they don’t like, bar people for any reason or no reason. You don’t like it, put in the work and the money and start your own damn board.

But once a board’s proprietors take the position that they will adhere to certain standards regarding the free exchange of ideas, then they have an obligation to honor those standards. To pay those standards lip service but ignore them in practice is gigantically hypocritical and cynical (said by the guy who created the false ID – sheesh, that’s credible!) I think in the instant case the purported standards weren’t honored, and that breach was exacerbated by the deception that Mason had no part in the decision to violate the standards. (Pot, kettle, black)

Anyway, I tried to use Seahorse to underscore that point and in so doing I undermined his neutrality, defeated his purpose – and oh yeah, got myself caught with my hand in the cookie jar.

I was wrong. If I hadn’t been caught I’d still be doing it, and that would be wrong too. Eventually I’d have given it up, because it made me uncomfortable – but I hadn’t yet. I tried to keep Seahorse neutral of personality conflicts, but failed.

I recognize that one of the results of this is that many points of merit noted both under my real name and the false persona will be lost ---- A sad but I guess fit punishment and consequence.

None of which is meant to imply that anything “seahorse” or I said in posts wasn’t true or from the heart. I meant what I said and said what I meant, under BOTH names! There was no deception in the content, just the source. But doing the Seahorse part through an anonymous persona was wrong. It ain’t the dumbest thing I’ve ever done; just the dumbest thing I’ve done lately. Totally my bad, and I deserve the humiliation arising from it.

Two final points.
1. RC had no knowledge of or part in this – he doesn’t even read 2+2. I often play one or two tables and journalize, write, post on various boards, etc. while I play (RC points out this costs me edge) This was just an extension of that, of me being me.
2. And Mat, if being a pain in the ass is grounds for banning you may have to shut the board down. Notwithstanding that, above and beyond any general apology to the community for my deception, please accept my personal apology for aggravation caused you. I’m sure running this board is tough enough without some [censored] making it worse.


While this is an explanation, it also an apology to all without qualification. I was wrong. I apologize to the community as a whole, and to Mat particularly.

Said and done. Taking my beat, recognizing it happened because I played bad, learning from it, and moving on to the next hand.

Best,

jb

[Wally Weeks]

Okay, now this is truly lame. If the book is good, it will obviously be deemed so. No need to promote the book on this commercial and/or competitor website.

I couldn't finish the extra long response to your "hand in the cookie jar" as I have already wasted enough time reading this thread in the first place.

Regards,
Wally

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]

I meant what I said and said what I meant, under BOTH names! There was no deception in the content, just the source.

[/ QUOTE ]


With how little I care about this topic, I can't believe I've kept up with it, but I must say that the above quote is lunacy, and I'll give you an extreme to point out the why. Let's say there is a topic where only three people care about it. They debate. 1 and 2 agree with each other while 3 has a fundamentally different viewpoint. 3 creates 97 screen names that all share his viewpoint, so now 98 people agree with side B whereas only 2 agree with side A. Same argument, same merits, but do you see the difference?

Personally I can't stand handles at all (amusing since many people think my name is a handle rather than my full name) and I think much of this type of nonsense would be eliminated if people would stand accountable for everything they say, as themselves, without having a bunch of names to say various things under all hiding behind their keyboard in order to sway public opinion.

Again: I don't think I could care less about this whole topic, but I do have a fundamental problem with people creating alter egos on boards in order to create phantom support for their questionable agendas.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com

[NLSoldier]

[ QUOTE ]
This is becoming ridiculous. John Bond is clearly making a great effort to promote himself and Cooke. This username has the identical ip address as John's, so I assume it is him.

This username has been banned and John Bond may find himself banned shortly as well, not because I'm trying to censor him, but because him and this topic are becoming a pain in my ass.

Mat

[/ QUOTE ]

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

John Bond wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
For what it’s worth, it was Seahorse’s questions that got Mason to admit that many of Russ’s accusations about the distant past are true, that some (though not most) of his accusations about big names are true,

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me make this very clear. The Russ G accusations about the distant past were mostly things that I was told about well before I ever heard of Russ G.

The other statement "that some (though not most) of his accusations about big names are true" is something that I disagree with. Furthermore, I have never stated I agree with this.

With this being said, I think the topic of "Keeping Poker Honest" deserves attention.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]

With this being said, I think the topic of "Keeping Poker Honest" deserves attention.


[/ QUOTE ]

Mason, do you think the topic of "Making Poker Honest" deserves any attention, as well?

(aka: I understand that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure", but should any effort be put into curing?)

Sincerely,

Josh

[JohnBond]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Everyone:

John Bond wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
For what it’s worth, it was Seahorse’s questions that got Mason to admit that many of Russ’s accusations about the distant past are true, that some (though not most) of his accusations about big names are true,

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me make this very clear. The Russ G accusations about the distant past were mostly things that I was told about well before I ever heard of Russ G.

The other statement "that some (though not most) of his accusations about big names are true" is something that I disagree with. Furthermore, I have never stated I agree with this.

With this being said, I think the topic of "Keeping Poker Honest" deserves attention.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...;o=14&vc=1

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe all of the Russ allegations to be false?

[/ QUOTE ]

When he talks abou events that happened 25 years ago I believe that many of them are true. Most of these are common knowledge among Las Vegas regulars anyway.

When he accusses virtually every current person who has some name recognition I believe that most of this is false.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe any of them to be true?


[/ QUOTE ]

Just answered.

[ QUOTE ]
Can you prove any of the allegations are false? Or true?


[/ QUOTE ]

To do this I would need access to information that I don't have and much of which probably doesn't exist anyway.

MM

[/ QUOTE ]

It says what it says --- most. (emphasis added) Not all, most. Or, by implication, some are true. No?

Best,

jb

[JohnBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]





[/ QUOTE ]

Yup [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

ROFLMFAO

Best,

jb