Just tell the doctor what you see, Paul...

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:38:13 -0700, "Robert Ladd" <rladd5 DeleteThis @cox.net>
wrote:

>I started to write a very long reply to this, detailing where I stand and
>why. Then, as I was starting to put the finishing touches on it, the vision
>of George Bailey sitting across from Mr. Potter after he was offered the job
>at Potter's bank. At first he couldn't put his finger on it, but he knew
>that something wasn't right, and then it hit him.

Wow... so, so CYNICAL, Bob.

Perhaps you might benefit from expanding your cinematic horizons...
Could I send you a free "Pollyanna" DVD? (original jewel case)

Hell, unlike Russ, I won't even ask ya to write a review of it on RGP.

Just MY GIFT... to you.

I just honestly feel it could help you... cuz this kinda unwarranted
cynicism is gonna eat ya up inside, bud.

> I look back on two
>previous examples where I tried to explain what I meant by something and all
>I got was misrepresentation and being called a "weasel" and worse.

But if you're calling it "misrepresentation", that means you're
calling ME something (by inference)... true?

You can call ME stuff but I can't counter by calling YOU stuff?...
That hardly seems fair, Bob.

But let's forget all that for a sec... the important point is, once
you've said a coupla things and I've said a coupla things, haven't I
just said, basically: "Hey folks, read what we both wrote and YOU
decide."

Haven't I said that, Bob? How can THAT be unfair?

How can throwing it up to RGP'ers judgment not be a square way about
settling things? After a coupla posts, this is what I've done.


>No thanks KT. With our recent history I don't think giving you any more pot
>shots at me would be wise.

psssst, Bob: You've definitely misinterpreted some things I've said to
you as "pot shots" (others here, I'm sure, have correctly identified
them as nothing more than me (humorously) yanking your chain.

> We're worlds apart and I'll just accept that.

That's fine... it's all good.


>Robert Ladd
>
>"K.T. Constanjuror88poet" <ktconstanjuror88poet DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote in message
>news:4rcf84pp7n46pq2lqvg8hjvlk1jv4br1m4@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:36:46 -0700, "Robert Ladd" <rladd5 DeleteThis @cox.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>We agree, now we'll just have to haggle over the percentage, and what
>>>falls
>>>into which category. My guess is that we're still a world apart.
>>>
>>>Robert Ladd
>>
>> Ok, Bob, upon reflection, I'll concede that my 90/10% is hyberbolic.
>>
>> Instead of haggling over percentages... how bout this?
>>
>> Would you say (considering the TOTALITY of what Russ has posted on
>> RGP) that the majority falls into the TRUE or UNTRUE category. Let's
>> keep it simple. Totality of Russ postings (on all subjects)...
>> majority of them are: TRUE or UNTRUE.
>>
>> Obviously you know where I stand...
>
 >> Stay informed about: Just tell the doctor what you see, Paul... 

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:42:42 -0700, "Robert Ladd" <rladd5 RemoveThis @cox.net>
wrote:

>Oh, BTW to answer your question as simply as I can, I honestly believe that
>most of what Russ writes here is true, or at least he believes his sources
>are true.
>
>Robert Ladd

First off, sincerely, thanks for the response.

I interpret your response to mainly address Russ's cheating
allegations (hell, just as Doggy has correctly pointed out in another
thread, Russ has accused just about *everybody* of being a cheat --
BS, IMO -- so, I know he's got some right. The Linda Johnson stuff,
for example, is BS, IMO).

So, again, you appear to be saying that you believe most of what Russ
has stated regarding cheating is TRUE (or he believes his sources to
be true) and that's obviously fine if you believe that. (I'll also
interpret your response to mean you believe most of Russ's recountings
of the people he's met, places he's been, that kinda stuff, etc., and
I'll even stipulate to most of that being true.)

We'll part ways in that I'll state that Russ has clearly exaggerated
and tainted the poker world with one broad "cheating brush" and is
definitely guilty of wrongly accusing various people (which is
SERIOUS, btw) simply, oft times, on nothing more than imagination,
speculation and hearsay.

Ok, we'll agree to disagree there.

What I'm not sure of in your response (and please, don't feel like you
need to respond to this b/c obviously you don't, I'm just stating this
from my end)... what I'm not sure of is how much validity you give to
Russ regarding a WHOLE BUNCH of other things that he's posted since
he's shown up here (remember, I used the word TOTALITY): i.e. "boiler
rooms" making money hand over fist, Barry G. excuses, his online
successes, hell, even his recent Esko excuses and various other
things.

These are the kinds of things I think Russ is next to 100% BS...

But again, we'll just leave it where we are.
 >> Stay informed about: Just tell the doctor what you see, Paul... 

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:54:51 -0500, "da pickle"
<jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote:

>"Robert Ladd"
>
>> Oh, BTW to answer your question as simply as I can, I honestly believe
>> that most of what Russ writes here is true, or at least he believes his
>> sources are true.
>
>You are just entirely too reasonable and polite, Robert.

You could really learn something from Bob, pickle...

Hell, if you were more like Bob, you probably wouldn't have to worry
about people mocking you in impersonation like they do.

Let's see, you wrongly accused Bob of being a plagiarist (check)

You wrongly accused me of being your imposter, more than once (check)

Hmmmm, I've never called YOU names like "jerk" like you've called me
while also falsely accusing... I've never used profanity (to be
pejorative) toward YOU lke you've done towards me (check)

Have I reciprocated by doing the things to you that you've done to ME?

Ah, no. (You're just pissed I tilted your buddy off the NG along with
mocking other "ideological friends" of yours).

Well, frankly, too effin' bad, Cochise.

The TRUTH of the matter is, I've been entirely too reasonable and
polite toward YOU... word.

> I am not sure I
>always agree with you, but my respect for you has grown significantly over
>the last many weeks ... for whatever it is worth.

Did you ever apologize to Bob for calling him a plagiarist?

I just saw you dodging, rationalizing and making excuses for your
false assertion.

(I haven't been holding my breath waiting for you to apologize for
your false assertions toward me, btw)

>Might you, perhaps, drop by and say hello at BARGE or somewhere sometime?

Gee... you've never asked me to drop by and say hello sometime...
 >> Stay informed about: Just tell the doctor what you see, Paul... 

"K.T. Constanjuror88poet" <ktconstanjuror88poet.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote in message

> My KT/Paul was getting a little
> "stale" (as we say in the biz),


Well you're half right.

Hey, are you a gambling man, numb nuts? What do you wanna bet that Bob does
not play around with your bullshit today? I've got to go to work, but I bet
when I take a look back here later on today there will be ZERO replies from
him to you. I sense he is getting a little annoyed with you.

Hey, KT, on another note, what say you and I make the trip to BARGE this
year. Can you think of anything that sounds like more fun?

-PP
 >> Stay informed about: Just tell the doctor what you see, Paul... 

You're putting me in a tough spot here PP. I certainly don't want to cause
you to lose a bet, but everything from him so far today has been logical and
mostly non-combative so I was thinking of responding to one or two posts.

Robert Ladd

"Paul Popinjay" <paulpopinjay[no spam]@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3zkik.16284$mh5.8384@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
> "K.T. Constanjuror88poet" <ktconstanjuror88poet DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote in message
>
>> My KT/Paul was getting a little
>> "stale" (as we say in the biz),
>
>
> Well you're half right.
>
> Hey, are you a gambling man, numb nuts? What do you wanna bet that Bob
> does not play around with your bullshit today? I've got to go to work,
> but I bet when I take a look back here later on today there will be ZERO
> replies from him to you. I sense he is getting a little annoyed with you.
>
> Hey, KT, on another note, what say you and I make the trip to BARGE this
> year. Can you think of anything that sounds like more fun?
>
> -PP
>
 >> Stay informed about: Just tell the doctor what you see, Paul... 

"K.T. Constanjuror88poet"

> Gee... you've never asked me to drop by and say hello sometime...

I might have.
 >> Stay informed about: Just tell the doctor what you see, Paul... 

"K.T. Constanjuror88poet" <ktconstanjuror88poet.TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote in message
news:fssi84tkbr7a23dn04q0jl48dd44pair3h@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:42:42 -0700, "Robert Ladd" <rladd5.TakeThisOut@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Oh, BTW to answer your question as simply as I can, I honestly believe
>>that
>>most of what Russ writes here is true, or at least he believes his sources
>>are true.
>>
>>Robert Ladd
>
> First off, sincerely, thanks for the response.
>
> I interpret your response to mainly address Russ's cheating
> allegations (hell, just as Doggy has correctly pointed out in another
> thread, Russ has accused just about *everybody* of being a cheat --
> BS, IMO -- so, I know he's got some right. The Linda Johnson stuff,
> for example, is BS, IMO).
>

First, I want to make this clear. I honestly don't know any of the people
that Russ has accused, nor have I even seen the situations that he
describes. Whereas, if someone knows some or many of these people from a
personal standpoint, visited their homes, had dinner with them, gone out
drinking with them, they have a "personal" involvement that precludes them
from probably looking at the accusations fairly and rationally. Some of the
nicest people you would ever meet do some of the craziest stuff that you
would never suspect, and if you found out they were doing it, they might
even be able to convince you that it isn't as bad as you picture it. The
point being, normal everyday people can do things that you think point out
that they are good honest people; they donate time to a homeless shelter
cooking up soup, they work on committees to help different medical ailments,
they donate money to causes that tug at our hearts. That doesn't mean that
they aren't cheating in other parts of their lives. Look at the number of
executives caught with their fingers in the cookie jar. Look at the ones
that have destroyed the retirement lives of tens of thousands of people by
plundering their retirement plans. All of these people have 10s or 100s of
people that would have staked their reputation that these people couldn't
think of doing such a thing, let alone actually pull it off.

I can only take what Russ says, and what others say, throw them in the mix
and form an opinion (I'm going to write an OT rant post about Opinions
sometime which might even shed more light on why I think like I do). You
state that he has accused just about "everybody" of being a cheat, and I
don't see it that way. He's accused quite a few people, and again I have no
clue as to any of the facts, but it seems like the people he has accused are
in specific spots in poker on the "gambling" side or the "house" side. Does
his accusations convince me that he is correct for any one of these people
or situations? Hell no. Should anyone believe that any one of these
people that Russ named is a cheat. Hell no. Do I believe that some or even
most of those named probably are cheats and are still actively cheating.
Hell yes! If that seem contradictory to you then I'm sorry, but it seem
pretty logical to me. The situations that Russ describes and the logic of
the situations gives me reason to think that people in these situations
could possibly be cheating. That doesn't convince me that in any specific
situation that it IS going on, just that it's possible. Does it really even
matter to me? No, I'm never going to be playing at that level that I have
to worry about it, but it is interesting to me, and so I fought to keep Russ
from being shouted down.

That has garnered me a lot of enemies, you obviously being one of them.

> So, again, you appear to be saying that you believe most of what Russ
> has stated regarding cheating is TRUE (or he believes his sources to
> be true) and that's obviously fine if you believe that. (I'll also
> interpret your response to mean you believe most of Russ's recountings
> of the people he's met, places he's been, that kinda stuff, etc., and
> I'll even stipulate to most of that being true.)
>
> We'll part ways in that I'll state that Russ has clearly exaggerated
> and tainted the poker world with one broad "cheating brush" and is

I think Russ sees things from his ego-centric perspective and therefore he's
not painting the whole poker world, just the part of it that he has been
involved in.

> definitely guilty of wrongly accusing various people (which is
> SERIOUS, btw)

Very serious indeed, if he is wrong as you say, but this is where we part,
because I really won't take the word of Russ OR the accused in this. I
honestly try to keep an open mind. It may seem like I'm taking Russ' side
when one of these arguments break out, but it's difficult to try and stay
completely neutral when 10 - 20 people are hammering Russ over his
accusation. This is a disagreement between Russ and the accused and I say
let them bang it out. I may be wrong, but I don't believe I've ever jumped
into one of these situations until it became heavily one sided against Russ
by people that knew only as much as I knew (which was usually zero) about
the situation.

>simply, oft times, on nothing more than imagination,
> speculation and hearsay.
>

I have no idea if any of it is Russ' IMAGINATION, but I very much doubt it
and I would think you probably would agree there too, though maybe not.
SPECULATION may very well be the case in certain situations, but I think it
is probably a logical speculation based on what and who he knows in the
industry, and I believe that he is probably more often right than wrong
here, though I think this is an area he should be much more careful with,
but I really don't completely know or understand his complete motivation.
HEARSAY, I think could be Russ' worst enemy. My guess, and this is only
speculation, that much of what gets passed to Russ now that he is fairly
isolated, are "poison pills" or just unreliable people that he uses as his
eyes and ears. This is where I don't agree at all with Russ. Of course, I
don't know how much of this he relies on and how reliable his sources are so
I can't even come close to making a judgement call as to whether he should
pursue these lines and I made the decision to try and stay out of the
picture here. I learned a good lesson with the Paul Lee and Daniel thing.

> Ok, we'll agree to disagree there.
>
> What I'm not sure of in your response (and please, don't feel like you
> need to respond to this b/c obviously you don't, I'm just stating this
> from my end)... what I'm not sure of is how much validity you give to
> Russ regarding a WHOLE BUNCH of other things that he's posted since
> he's shown up here (remember, I used the word TOTALITY): i.e. "boiler
> rooms" making money hand over fist, Barry G. excuses, his online
> successes, hell, even his recent Esko excuses and various other
> things.
>

These other things are fluff and I mostly laugh at them. I think Russ gets
himself into untenable situations and is forced to extract himself. He
makes accusations against people in the industry, and when they don't defend
themselves he sees it as a win for himself. When others attack and accuse
him, I believe he feels like he must defend himself or he loses. Most of
the times he could probably just ignore the accusations or challenges and he
would be much better off, especially with the credibility of some of the
posters he is arguing with. It's his choice, and I'm not his PR man, so I
usually sit back and just watch, maybe adding a comment or two when it gets
too lopsided or rediculously stupid.

Robert Ladd

> These are the kinds of things I think Russ is next to 100% BS...
>
> But again, we'll just leave it where we are.
>
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Just tell the doctor what you see, Paul... 

"Robert Ladd" <rladd5 DeleteThis @cox.net> wrote in message
news:BDAik.1872$yn5.1201@newsfe08.iad...
>
> "K.T. Constanjuror88poet" <ktconstanjuror88poet DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote in message
> news:fssi84tkbr7a23dn04q0jl48dd44pair3h@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:42:42 -0700, "Robert Ladd" <rladd5 DeleteThis @cox.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Oh, BTW to answer your question as simply as I can, I honestly believe
>>>that
>>>most of what Russ writes here is true, or at least he believes his
>>>sources
>>>are true.
>>>
>>>Robert Ladd
>>
>> First off, sincerely, thanks for the response.
>>
>> I interpret your response to mainly address Russ's cheating
>> allegations (hell, just as Doggy has correctly pointed out in another
>> thread, Russ has accused just about *everybody* of being a cheat --
>> BS, IMO -- so, I know he's got some right. The Linda Johnson stuff,
>> for example, is BS, IMO).
>>
>
> First, I want to make this clear. I honestly don't know any of the people
> that Russ has accused, nor have I even seen the situations that he
> describes. Whereas, if someone knows some or many of these people from a
> personal standpoint, visited their homes, had dinner with them, gone out
> drinking with them, they have a "personal" involvement that precludes them
> from probably looking at the accusations fairly and rationally. Some of
> the
> nicest people you would ever meet do some of the craziest stuff that you
> would never suspect, and if you found out they were doing it, they might
> even be able to convince you that it isn't as bad as you picture it. The
> point being, normal everyday people can do things that you think point out
> that they are good honest people; they donate time to a homeless shelter
> cooking up soup, they work on committees to help different medical
> ailments,
> they donate money to causes that tug at our hearts. That doesn't mean
> that
> they aren't cheating in other parts of their lives. Look at the number of
> executives caught with their fingers in the cookie jar. Look at the ones
> that have destroyed the retirement lives of tens of thousands of people by
> plundering their retirement plans. All of these people have 10s or 100s
> of
> people that would have staked their reputation that these people couldn't
> think of doing such a thing, let alone actually pull it off.
>
> I can only take what Russ says, and what others say, throw them in the mix
> and form an opinion (I'm going to write an OT rant post about Opinions
> sometime which might even shed more light on why I think like I do). You
> state that he has accused just about "everybody" of being a cheat, and I
> don't see it that way. He's accused quite a few people, and again I have
> no
> clue as to any of the facts, but it seems like the people he has accused
> are
> in specific spots in poker on the "gambling" side or the "house" side.
> Does
> his accusations convince me that he is correct for any one of these people
> or situations? Hell no. Should anyone believe that any one of these
> people that Russ named is a cheat. Hell no. Do I believe that some or
> even
> most of those named probably are cheats and are still actively cheating.
> Hell yes! If that seem contradictory to you then I'm sorry, but it seem
> pretty logical to me. The situations that Russ describes and the logic of
> the situations gives me reason to think that people in these situations
> could possibly be cheating. That doesn't convince me that in any specific
> situation that it IS going on, just that it's possible. Does it really
> even
> matter to me? No, I'm never going to be playing at that level that I have
> to worry about it, but it is interesting to me, and so I fought to keep
> Russ
> from being shouted down.
>
> That has garnered me a lot of enemies, you obviously being one of them.
>
>> So, again, you appear to be saying that you believe most of what Russ
>> has stated regarding cheating is TRUE (or he believes his sources to
>> be true) and that's obviously fine if you believe that. (I'll also
>> interpret your response to mean you believe most of Russ's recountings
>> of the people he's met, places he's been, that kinda stuff, etc., and
>> I'll even stipulate to most of that being true.)
>>
>> We'll part ways in that I'll state that Russ has clearly exaggerated
>> and tainted the poker world with one broad "cheating brush" and is
>
> I think Russ sees things from his ego-centric perspective and therefore
> he's not painting the whole poker world, just the part of it that he has
> been involved in.
>
>> definitely guilty of wrongly accusing various people (which is
>> SERIOUS, btw)
>
> Very serious indeed, if he is wrong as you say, but this is where we part,
> because I really won't take the word of Russ OR the accused in this. I
> honestly try to keep an open mind. It may seem like I'm taking Russ' side
> when one of these arguments break out, but it's difficult to try and stay
> completely neutral when 10 - 20 people are hammering Russ over his
> accusation. This is a disagreement between Russ and the accused and I
> say let them bang it out. I may be wrong, but I don't believe I've ever
> jumped into one of these situations until it became heavily one sided
> against Russ by people that knew only as much as I knew (which was usually
> zero) about the situation.
>
>>simply, oft times, on nothing more than imagination,
>> speculation and hearsay.
>>
>
> I have no idea if any of it is Russ' IMAGINATION, but I very much doubt it
> and I would think you probably would agree there too, though maybe not.
> SPECULATION may very well be the case in certain situations, but I think
> it is probably a logical speculation based on what and who he knows in the
> industry, and I believe that he is probably more often right than wrong
> here, though I think this is an area he should be much more careful with,
> but I really don't completely know or understand his complete motivation.
> HEARSAY, I think could be Russ' worst enemy. My guess, and this is only
> speculation, that much of what gets passed to Russ now that he is fairly
> isolated, are "poison pills" or just unreliable people that he uses as his
> eyes and ears. This is where I don't agree at all with Russ. Of course,
> I don't know how much of this he relies on and how reliable his sources
> are so I can't even come close to making a judgement call as to whether he
> should pursue these lines and I made the decision to try and stay out of
> the picture here. I learned a good lesson with the Paul Lee and Daniel
> thing.
>
>> Ok, we'll agree to disagree there.
>>
>> What I'm not sure of in your response (and please, don't feel like you
>> need to respond to this b/c obviously you don't, I'm just stating this
>> from my end)... what I'm not sure of is how much validity you give to
>> Russ regarding a WHOLE BUNCH of other things that he's posted since
>> he's shown up here (remember, I used the word TOTALITY): i.e. "boiler
>> rooms" making money hand over fist, Barry G. excuses, his online
>> successes, hell, even his recent Esko excuses and various other
>> things.
>>
>
> These other things are fluff and I mostly laugh at them. I think Russ
> gets himself into untenable situations and is forced to extract himself.
> He makes accusations against people in the industry, and when they don't
> defend themselves he sees it as a win for himself. When others attack and
> accuse him, I believe he feels like he must defend himself or he loses.
> Most of the times he could probably just ignore the accusations or
> challenges and he would be much better off, especially with the
> credibility of some of the posters he is arguing with. It's his choice,
> and I'm not his PR man, so I usually sit back and just watch, maybe adding
> a comment or two when it gets too lopsided or rediculously stupid.
>
> Robert Ladd
>

"He makes accusations against people in the industry, and when they don't
defend
themselves he sees it as a win for himself."

Not much of a "win" when you consider that Russ makes his most viscious,
insulting and slanderous attacks against players after they die.
Bottomline: No one really cares about the 30 years old cheating stories of
an admitted poker cheat. Nearly every one Russ accuses of cheating "back in
the old days" has gone on to be highly successful and Russ resents it. He's
a broke, jealous, bitter old man who never forgave the poker world for
passing him by.

Irish Mike
 >> Stay informed about: Just tell the doctor what you see, Paul... 

"Irish Mike" <mjostar.RemoveThis@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:nVXik.17382$89.16200@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> "Robert Ladd" <rladd5.RemoveThis@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:BDAik.1872$yn5.1201@newsfe08.iad...
>>
>> "K.T. Constanjuror88poet" <ktconstanjuror88poet.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:fssi84tkbr7a23dn04q0jl48dd44pair3h@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:42:42 -0700, "Robert Ladd" <rladd5.RemoveThis@cox.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Oh, BTW to answer your question as simply as I can, I honestly believe
>>>>that
>>>>most of what Russ writes here is true, or at least he believes his
>>>>sources
>>>>are true.
>>>>
>>>>Robert Ladd
>>>
>>> First off, sincerely, thanks for the response.
>>>
>>> I interpret your response to mainly address Russ's cheating
>>> allegations (hell, just as Doggy has correctly pointed out in another
>>> thread, Russ has accused just about *everybody* of being a cheat --
>>> BS, IMO -- so, I know he's got some right. The Linda Johnson stuff,
>>> for example, is BS, IMO).
>>>
>>
>> First, I want to make this clear. I honestly don't know any of the
>> people
>> that Russ has accused, nor have I even seen the situations that he
>> describes. Whereas, if someone knows some or many of these people from a
>> personal standpoint, visited their homes, had dinner with them, gone out
>> drinking with them, they have a "personal" involvement that precludes
>> them
>> from probably looking at the accusations fairly and rationally. Some of
>> the
>> nicest people you would ever meet do some of the craziest stuff that you
>> would never suspect, and if you found out they were doing it, they might
>> even be able to convince you that it isn't as bad as you picture it. The
>> point being, normal everyday people can do things that you think point
>> out
>> that they are good honest people; they donate time to a homeless shelter
>> cooking up soup, they work on committees to help different medical
>> ailments,
>> they donate money to causes that tug at our hearts. That doesn't mean
>> that
>> they aren't cheating in other parts of their lives. Look at the number
>> of
>> executives caught with their fingers in the cookie jar. Look at the ones
>> that have destroyed the retirement lives of tens of thousands of people
>> by
>> plundering their retirement plans. All of these people have 10s or 100s
>> of
>> people that would have staked their reputation that these people couldn't
>> think of doing such a thing, let alone actually pull it off.
>>
>> I can only take what Russ says, and what others say, throw them in the
>> mix
>> and form an opinion (I'm going to write an OT rant post about Opinions
>> sometime which might even shed more light on why I think like I do). You
>> state that he has accused just about "everybody" of being a cheat, and I
>> don't see it that way. He's accused quite a few people, and again I have
>> no
>> clue as to any of the facts, but it seems like the people he has accused
>> are
>> in specific spots in poker on the "gambling" side or the "house" side.
>> Does
>> his accusations convince me that he is correct for any one of these
>> people
>> or situations? Hell no. Should anyone believe that any one of these
>> people that Russ named is a cheat. Hell no. Do I believe that some or
>> even
>> most of those named probably are cheats and are still actively cheating.
>> Hell yes! If that seem contradictory to you then I'm sorry, but it seem
>> pretty logical to me. The situations that Russ describes and the logic
>> of
>> the situations gives me reason to think that people in these situations
>> could possibly be cheating. That doesn't convince me that in any
>> specific
>> situation that it IS going on, just that it's possible. Does it really
>> even
>> matter to me? No, I'm never going to be playing at that level that I
>> have
>> to worry about it, but it is interesting to me, and so I fought to keep
>> Russ
>> from being shouted down.
>>
>> That has garnered me a lot of enemies, you obviously being one of them.
>>
>>> So, again, you appear to be saying that you believe most of what Russ
>>> has stated regarding cheating is TRUE (or he believes his sources to
>>> be true) and that's obviously fine if you believe that. (I'll also
>>> interpret your response to mean you believe most of Russ's recountings
>>> of the people he's met, places he's been, that kinda stuff, etc., and
>>> I'll even stipulate to most of that being true.)
>>>
>>> We'll part ways in that I'll state that Russ has clearly exaggerated
>>> and tainted the poker world with one broad "cheating brush" and is
>>
>> I think Russ sees things from his ego-centric perspective and therefore
>> he's not painting the whole poker world, just the part of it that he has
>> been involved in.
>>
>>> definitely guilty of wrongly accusing various people (which is
>>> SERIOUS, btw)
>>
>> Very serious indeed, if he is wrong as you say, but this is where we
>> part, because I really won't take the word of Russ OR the accused in
>> this. I honestly try to keep an open mind. It may seem like I'm taking
>> Russ' side when one of these arguments break out, but it's difficult to
>> try and stay completely neutral when 10 - 20 people are hammering Russ
>> over his accusation. This is a disagreement between Russ and the
>> accused and I say let them bang it out. I may be wrong, but I don't
>> believe I've ever jumped into one of these situations until it became
>> heavily one sided against Russ by people that knew only as much as I knew
>> (which was usually zero) about the situation.
>>
>>>simply, oft times, on nothing more than imagination,
>>> speculation and hearsay.
>>>
>>
>> I have no idea if any of it is Russ' IMAGINATION, but I very much doubt
>> it and I would think you probably would agree there too, though maybe
>> not. SPECULATION may very well be the case in certain situations, but I
>> think it is probably a logical speculation based on what and who he knows
>> in the industry, and I believe that he is probably more often right than
>> wrong here, though I think this is an area he should be much more careful
>> with, but I really don't completely know or understand his complete
>> motivation. HEARSAY, I think could be Russ' worst enemy. My guess, and
>> this is only speculation, that much of what gets passed to Russ now that
>> he is fairly isolated, are "poison pills" or just unreliable people that
>> he uses as his eyes and ears. This is where I don't agree at all with
>> Russ. Of course, I don't know how much of this he relies on and how
>> reliable his sources are so I can't even come close to making a judgement
>> call as to whether he should pursue these lines and I made the decision
>> to try and stay out of the picture here. I learned a good lesson with
>> the Paul Lee and Daniel thing.
>>
>>> Ok, we'll agree to disagree there.
>>>
>>> What I'm not sure of in your response (and please, don't feel like you
>>> need to respond to this b/c obviously you don't, I'm just stating this
>>> from my end)... what I'm not sure of is how much validity you give to
>>> Russ regarding a WHOLE BUNCH of other things that he's posted since
>>> he's shown up here (remember, I used the word TOTALITY): i.e. "boiler
>>> rooms" making money hand over fist, Barry G. excuses, his online
>>> successes, hell, even his recent Esko excuses and various other
>>> things.
>>>
>>
>> These other things are fluff and I mostly laugh at them. I think Russ
>> gets himself into untenable situations and is forced to extract himself.
>> He makes accusations against people in the industry, and when they don't
>> defend themselves he sees it as a win for himself. When others attack
>> and accuse him, I believe he feels like he must defend himself or he
>> loses. Most of the times he could probably just ignore the accusations or
>> challenges and he would be much better off, especially with the
>> credibility of some of the posters he is arguing with. It's his choice,
>> and I'm not his PR man, so I usually sit back and just watch, maybe
>> adding a comment or two when it gets too lopsided or rediculously stupid.
>>
>> Robert Ladd
>>
>
> "He makes accusations against people in the industry, and when they don't
> defend
> themselves he sees it as a win for himself."
>
> Not much of a "win" when you consider that Russ makes his most viscious,
> insulting and slanderous attacks against players after they die.
>

I'm not sure what you're basing "most vicious, insulting and slanderous
attacks" upon, but from what I remember, practically everyone that Russ
accused was alive when he accused them. And just because some have died in
the 7-8 years he's been posting doesn't equate with him attacking "after
they die".

> Bottomline: No one really cares about the 30 years old cheating stories
> of an admitted poker cheat.

No one? You're wrong there. Some people are interested.

>Nearly every one Russ accuses of cheating "back in the old days"

I believe that his accusations are that they didn't stop "in the old days"
and that most are still at it today. I think his contention is that those
that cheated and those from the poker management side that helped them are
still in the same positions. As I posted above, I don't know anything
about any of these people so I keep an open mind. When someone says that
Bush went to war in Iraq because Cheney wanted to send billions of dollars
of business action to Haliburton and others, I admit I don't know any of the
players personally, but I'm going to keep an open mind.

>
>has gone on to be highly successful and Russ resents it.
>

I keep that as a possibility.

>
>He's a broke, jealous, bitter old man who never forgave the poker world for
>passing him by.
>

That is possible also.


Robert Ladd

>
> Irish Mike
>
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Just tell the doctor what you see, Paul... 

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 06:29:17 -0700, "Pau Popinjay" <paupopinjay[no
spam]@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>"K.T. Constanjuror88poet" <ktconstanjuror88poet RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote in message
>
>> My KT/Paul was getting a little
>> "stale" (as we say in the biz),
>
>
>Well you're half right.

No shit... I was just being polite to you, per my NY resolution.

Truth is, in quality, your posts have been going down faster than a
$10 whore...

Now I've been gone a few days and I come back to see you going meshuga
in all kinds of threads... ffs you're lost without my guidance.

Can't you ever just TAKE A POWDER when you're this unstable?

>Hey, are you a gambling man, numb nuts? What do you wanna bet that Bob does
>not play around with your bullshit today? I've got to go to work, but I bet
>when I take a look back here later on today there will be ZERO replies from
>him to you.

I see that you woulda lost the bet, asshat.

You owe me a f'n watermelon.

> I sense he is getting a little annoyed with you.

Au contraire, Monsieur Moron.

Bob and I have persevered and have established a rapport... and
IT'S...KILLING...YOU...INSIDE.

Didn't Mama Popinjay ever teach you that jealousy is very unbecoming?

>Hey, KT, on another note, what say you and I make the trip to BARGE this
>year. Can you think of anything that sounds like more fun?

We should... while you're saying HI to pickle, I'll make a play for
Lady Dianne.

We'll take her to the Oasis... it'll be a hoot.

>-P
 >> Stay informed about: Just tell the doctor what you see, Paul... 

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:47:53 -0700, "Robert Ladd" <rladd5.DeleteThis@cox.net>
wrote:

>First, I want to make this clear. I honestly don't know any of the people
>that Russ has accused, nor have I even seen the situations that he
>describes. Whereas, if someone knows some or many of these people from a
>personal standpoint, visited their homes, had dinner with them, gone out
>drinking with them, they have a "personal" involvement that precludes them
>from probably looking at the accusations fairly and rationally. Some of the
>nicest people you would ever meet do some of the craziest stuff that you
>would never suspect, and if you found out they were doing it, they might
>even be able to convince you that it isn't as bad as you picture it. The
>point being, normal everyday people can do things that you think point out
>that they are good honest people; they donate time to a homeless shelter
>cooking up soup, they work on committees to help different medical ailments,
>they donate money to causes that tug at our hearts. That doesn't mean that
>they aren't cheating in other parts of their lives. Look at the number of
>executives caught with their fingers in the cookie jar. Look at the ones
>that have destroyed the retirement lives of tens of thousands of people by
>plundering their retirement plans. All of these people have 10s or 100s of
>people that would have staked their reputation that these people couldn't
>think of doing such a thing, let alone actually pull it off.

What you say above, in the general sense, is in large part true...
however, the *difference* between the "executives caught with their
fingers in the cookie jar" and the numerous people Russ has accused
is, of course... <drumroll>... PROOF.

Listen, I know Russ has accurately named some cheaters; what I also
know is that he has smeared others as well.


>I can only take what Russ says, and what others say, throw them in the mix
>and form an opinion (I'm going to write an OT rant post about Opinions
>sometime which might even shed more light on why I think like I do).

This makes sense (and I've already read your "opinion" post, and I
hear ya).

If I might digress a moment for a quick comment outside your "opinion"
post but pertaining to it re: CARLIN -- While I generally liked
George and certainly admired his choice of strippers (we 'shared' the
same young lady for entertainment, a few months apart prior to his
death), and few could pull off a RANT like him... I find it kind of
laughable when multi-millionaires (like George) rant on and include
themselves among the "regular folk" that are getting screwed (to a
large extent, people like George could circumvent many -- not all --
of the "regular folk" screwage).

> You state that he has accused just about "everybody" of being a cheat, and I
>don't see it that way. He's accused quite a few people, and again I have no
>clue as to any of the facts, but it seems like the people he has accused are
>in specific spots in poker on the "gambling" side or the "house" side. Does
>his accusations convince me that he is correct for any one of these people
>or situations? Hell no. Should anyone believe that any one of these
>people that Russ named is a cheat. Hell no. Do I believe that some or even
>most of those named probably are cheats and are still actively cheating.
>Hell yes! If that seem contradictory to you then I'm sorry, but it seem
>pretty logical to me. The situations that Russ describes and the logic of
>the situations gives me reason to think that people in these situations
>could possibly be cheating. That doesn't convince me that in any specific
>situation that it IS going on, just that it's possible. Does it really even
>matter to me? No, I'm never going to be playing at that level that I have
>to worry about it, but it is interesting to me, and so I fought to keep Russ
>from being shouted down.
>
>That has garnered me a lot of enemies, you obviously being one of them.

I'm not your enemy, Bob.


>I think Russ sees things from his ego-centric perspective

Absolutely...

> and therefore he's not painting the whole poker world, just the part of it that he has been
>involved in.

Disagree here. Russ being egocentric is still not incongruous with him
painting the whole poker world as CHEATS, which he basically has done
to a large, large degree.

>
>> definitely guilty of wrongly accusing various people (which is
>> SERIOUS, btw)
>
>Very serious indeed, if he is wrong as you say, but this is where we part,
>because I really won't take the word of Russ OR the accused in this. I
>honestly try to keep an open mind.

That's a fine & dandy attitude... for YOU.

How would you feel if you were an innocent labeled a cheater by Russ?

> It may seem like I'm taking Russ' side
>when one of these arguments break out,

It has/does...

> but it's difficult to try and stay
>completely neutral when 10 - 20 people are hammering Russ over his
>accusation. This is a disagreement between Russ and the accused and I say
>let them bang it out. I may be wrong, but I don't believe I've ever jumped
>into one of these situations until it became heavily one sided against Russ
>by people that knew only as much as I knew (which was usually zero) about
>the situation.


>>simply, oft times, on nothing more than imagination,
>> speculation and hearsay.
>>
>
>I have no idea if any of it is Russ' IMAGINATION, but I very much doubt it
>and I would think you probably would agree there too, though maybe not.

I don't agree... I used the word "imagination" purposely.


>SPECULATION may very well be the case in certain situations,

The majority, IMO.

> but I think it is probably a logical speculation based on what and who he knows in the
>industry, and I believe that he is probably more often right than wrong
>here, though I think this is an area he should be much more careful with,

He should be more careful, I agree... but he isn't.

>but I really don't completely know or understand his complete motivation.

A HA!... the $64,000 question. (Though I have strong suspicions, and
they're not flattering to Russ.)

>HEARSAY, I think could be Russ' worst enemy.

It is.

> My guess, and this is only speculation, that much of what gets passed to Russ now that he is fairly
>isolated, are "poison pills" or just unreliable people that he uses as his
>eyes and ears. This is where I don't agree at all with Russ.

Yep and yep...

> Of course, I don't know how much of this he relies on and how reliable his sources are so
>I can't even come close to making a judgement call as to whether he should
>pursue these lines and I made the decision to try and stay out of the
>picture here. I learned a good lesson with the Paul Lee and Daniel thing.

OK.
>
>> Ok, we'll agree to disagree there.
>>
>> What I'm not sure of in your response (and please, don't feel like you
>> need to respond to this b/c obviously you don't, I'm just stating this
>> from my end)... what I'm not sure of is how much validity you give to
>> Russ regarding a WHOLE BUNCH of other things that he's posted since
>> he's shown up here (remember, I used the word TOTALITY): i.e. "boiler
>> rooms" making money hand over fist, Barry G. excuses, his online
>> successes, hell, even his recent Esko excuses and various other
>> things.
>>
>
>These other things are fluff and I mostly laugh at them.

Russ hasn't played them as "fluff", and he's poisoned the NG ad
nauseam with this kinda incessant "fluff" and driven people away from
RGP.

> I think Russ gets himself into untenable situations and is forced to extract himself.

Many times...

>He makes accusations against people in the industry, and when they don't defend
>themselves he sees it as a win for himself.

You're probably right... but the logic of Russ thinking this is
ridiculous.

> When others attack and accuse him, I believe he feels like he must defend himself or he loses.

Again, probably right... but many people see through his 'defense' and
deem him a bullshitter.

> Most of the times he could probably just ignore the accusations or challenges and he
>would be much better off, especially with the credibility of some of the
>posters he is arguing with. It's his choice, and I'm not his PR man, so I
>usually sit back and just watch, maybe adding a comment or two when it gets
>too lopsided or rediculously stupid.

Thanks for the comments... personally, I'm sick of talking about Russ.

Live long and prosper, Bob...


>Robert Ladd
>
>> These are the kinds of things I think Russ is next to 100% BS...
>>
>> But again, we'll just leave it where we are.
 >> Stay informed about: Just tell the doctor what you see, Paul...