When will they arrest Doyle? |
|
Posted Mon Oct 30, 2006 2:01 am GMT by Alaskadude
Just sitting in a hotel room waiting for checkout time and daydreaming a bit...
I haven't been to Doyle's Room yet and I'm not sure just what part he plays in it's operation but, since the morons in our government have chosen to arrest some executives of non US companies that provide gambling and poker, when are they going to decide it's time to go after a US citizen and arrest Doyle Brunson?
I sincerely hope it never happens to the man but, can you just imagine the indignation and outburst of anger that would erupt? It would do more to get online poker legalized in the US than anything else would because they would have to legalize it just to quiet down the massive protests.
He wouldn't have to spend a dime in legal fees either as there would be hundreds of "Free Doyle" fundraiser tourney's running across the US on a daily basis.
I'm only daydreaming here but can you just imagine what it would be like?
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Mon Oct 30, 2006 10:45 am GMT by aaronw
I am not 100% sure on this, but I am pretty sure that he doesn't own or operate the company himself. I think he is just a front for the company (ie- a marketing person).
***I believe I read this somewhere previously. I will try to dig up the source.
Posted Mon Oct 30, 2006 10:51 am GMT by cayouche
| aaronw wrote: | | ***I believe I read this somewhere previously. I will try to dig up the source. |
He says so in his book, SS2.
Posted Mon Oct 30, 2006 11:16 am GMT by ORGrinder
he's gotta be gettin paid though right? i mean, he wouldn't do it if there was nothing in it for him. it's not like he needs to get his name out there any more than it already is.
that said, he's a smart enough guy to know how to cover his ass i'm sure. i imagine his team of lawyers worked it out somehow so that he can get paid but all on the up and up.
Posted Mon Oct 30, 2006 12:01 pm GMT by aaronw
| cayouche wrote: | | aaronw wrote: | | ***I believe I read this somewhere previously. I will try to dig up the source. |
He says so in his book, SS2. |
Thanks. I was pretty sure I read that I just couldn't remember where.
Posted Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:38 pm GMT by flafishy
| ORGrinder wrote: | he's gotta be gettin paid though right? i mean, he wouldn't do it if there was nothing in it for him. it's not like he needs to get his name out there any more than it already is.
that said, he's a smart enough guy to know how to cover his ass i'm sure. i imagine his team of lawyers worked it out somehow so that he can get paid but all on the up and up. |
As far as I know, there's nothing illegal about him getting paid for use of his image and likeness. There's nothing illegal about him playing on the site as long as he doesn't do it from one of about 10 states. He just can't use a credit card or a direct electronic bank transfer to make a deposit.
People really need to stop reading into this law more than is there.
Posted Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:42 pm GMT by shorn7
As long as he is not on the BOD of Doyle's room, the US government cannot touch him like it has other execs. Using his likeness does not constitute "control" over the company's operations which seems to be the deciding factor in the arrests.
Posted Mon Oct 30, 2006 2:56 pm GMT by ORGrinder
| flafishy wrote: | | ORGrinder wrote: | he's gotta be gettin paid though right? i mean, he wouldn't do it if there was nothing in it for him. it's not like he needs to get his name out there any more than it already is.
that said, he's a smart enough guy to know how to cover his ass i'm sure. i imagine his team of lawyers worked it out somehow so that he can get paid but all on the up and up. |
As far as I know, there's nothing illegal about him getting paid for use of his image and likeness. There's nothing illegal about him playing on the site as long as he doesn't do it from one of about 10 states. He just can't use a credit card or a direct electronic bank transfer to make a deposit.
People really need to stop reading into this law more than is there. |
uh... thanks for verifying my point?
Posted Tue Oct 31, 2006 2:27 pm GMT by Alaskadude
Interesting quote by Doyle but I can think of a LOT of democrats I would never vote for.
"I think the Republicans are going to lose every election. I am a life-long Republican myself and I am voting for the Democrats and I hope all poker players do the same." Doyle Brunson
Posted Tue Oct 31, 2006 4:11 pm GMT by ORGrinder
with respect to mr brunson... that's an easier statement to make (and position to hold) when you have so much money you don't really have much to care about other than not having a plane flown into the casino he's playin poker at.
Posted Tue Oct 31, 2006 9:00 pm GMT by Alaskadude
And speaking of democrats I wouldn't vote for, have you read what John (lurch) Kerry said?
Posted Tue Oct 31, 2006 10:43 pm GMT by Earthshine
| Alaskadude wrote: | | And speaking of democrats I wouldn't vote for, have you read what John (lurch) Kerry said? |
John F'in Kerry.. Brilliant.
Posted Wed Nov 01, 2006 4:41 am GMT by groton
oy vee
John Karry Says somthing thats preaty true as a off the cuff remark and you boys are all over him.
its preaty true IRAQ is turning into Nam
but this is not the place to debate
Posted Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:51 am GMT by shorn7
Regardless of the truth of the statement (and I for one do not agree with him at all), he showed his utter contempt and disdain for the people that allow us to live like we do in the US. Mr. Kerry is an embarassment to Massachusetts and Americans everywhere. I loathe him.
Posted Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:36 pm GMT by ORGrinder
| shorn7 wrote: | | I loathe him. |
LOL.... i'm not saying i agree or disagree... but that was way funny (i say that in a non sarcastic way). thanks! hehehe.
Posted Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:15 pm GMT by Alaskadude
| groton wrote: | oy vee
John Karry Says somthing thats preaty true as a off the cuff remark and you boys are all over him.
its preaty true IRAQ is turning into Nam
but this is not the place to debate |
Off the cuff my ass, the man said what he believes. Why should he get a free pass? His comment was very, very stupid and I'll slam any politician that makes a comment like that. What's fair for idiot Republicans is fair for idiot Democrats.
However, in an effort to get this thread back on track, maybe someone should tell Doyle about what Kerry's opinion of our military members really is. He might rethink he comment about only voting for Democrats.
Posted Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:25 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| shorn7 wrote: | | and I for one do not agree with him at all |
To what socio-economic stratum does your average enlisted man serving in the armed forces belong?
The comment he made was correct. The manner and context in which he made it was not. Let's not shoot the messenger, ok?
Posted Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:14 pm GMT by shorn7
Sean-
What socio-economic stratum one belongs to has no direct correlation with how smart they are or whether they have worked hard at their education. That is the part of the comment that was incorrect, insensitive, and disrespectful. For the party that calls themselves the champions of diversity and inclusion, Kerry's clear disdain for Americans in the military is a shocking reminder of just how out of touch he is.
Would I argue that the average enlisted man is less wealthy and overall has less schooling than other occupations? OK, maybe that is fair. But that has nothing to do with their intelligence as people nor the plain fact that because of what they do, we live much more comfortably and safer than any other country in the world. For that service, they deserve our utmost respect and not BS, liberal slander from tools like John "TreeBeard" Kerry.
Shorn
Posted Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:24 pm GMT by ORGrinder
quote="Sean_in_NJ" | shorn7 wrote: | | To what socio-economic stratum does your average enlisted man serving in the armed forces belong? |
last i heard... socio-economic status and level of education weren't the same thing (perhaps loosley correlated... but not causal by any means).
that said, i can answer you're question simply:
i'm pretty sure 100% of enlisted men and women are HS Graduates (it's required now no?).
since college grads, unless specifically requesting enlisted positions over commissions, go through officer training as opposed to enlisted training, it's not really fair to compare the two. apples and oranges. that said, i believe the stat i saw was something like 85% of officers are college grads. i could be wrong on that figure... i saw it in passing on the news. it's somewhere around there though.
Posted Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:31 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| shorn7 wrote: | Sean-
What socio-economic stratum one belongs to has no direct correlation with how smart they are or whether they have worked hard at their education. That is the part of the comment that was incorrect, insensitive, and disrespectful. For the party that calls themselves the champions of diversity and inclusion, Kerry's clear disdain for Americans in the military is a shocking reminder of just how out of touch he is.
Would I argue that the average enlisted man is less wealthy and overall has less schooling than other occupations? OK, maybe that is fair. But that has nothing to do with their intelligence as people nor the plain fact that because of what they do, we live much more comfortably and safer than any other country in the world. For that service, they deserve our utmost respect and not BS, liberal slander from tools like John "TreeBeard" Kerry.
Shorn |
I suggest you reread his comments then. At no point did he say that those of a lower economic standing work less hard at anything. What he did say is, and I'm paraphrasing, work hard now and get an education or you'll have precious few options, the military being one of them.
Now, just because I feel like muckraking today, I'll venture a guess that the minority of our armed service members joined for the noble purposes you'd like to attribute to the entire group. Those that re-enlist at the end of their service term, if they haven't already been extended and refused the option, are likely doing so with their retirement and pension packages in mind, not for the glory of defending freedom. I would further offer that our overwhelming firepower plays a significantly larger role in our comfort and safety than the training of our soldiers.
The simple truth is that the poor and the uneducated are those that are sent to fight wars, because they're willing to do so sans other better opportunities. Without a conscript army, that will remain the case.
Posted Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:34 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| ORGrinder wrote: | | last i heard... socio-economic status and level of education weren't the same thing (perhaps loosley correlated... but not causal by any means). |
We should probably stop telling everyone that then.
"SORRY FOLKS! Clearly, college degrees play no role in your future earning potential. Nor does your family income play a role in the quality of your education."
"Please continue with your lives as you were."
Posted Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:42 pm GMT by tame_deuces
The military works quite differently in the US from Norway, since we have the draft. Still, being in the military can teach you stuff I would often wish others would also learn.
I'm not putting military personnel on some high ledge, they're not better or worse than any other people you'll meet, and there certainly can be rotten apples. But still there is focus on developing skills for cooperation, living close to others, understanding why it is important to 'haul your load' and some basic discipline. Maybe not all take it to heart, but I'm still sure military personell have a greater affinity for this as a whole.
Posted Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:45 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| tame_deuces wrote: | | Maybe not all take it to heart, but I'm still sure military personell have a greater affinity for this as a whole. |
They kinda have to, because getting killed is generally not a pleasant alternative.
Team sports can teach you the same thing of course, but without the extreme "or else."
Posted Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:51 pm GMT by tame_deuces
Well, only a minority of military personnel serve in the 'sharp edge' where the bullets tend to actually fly. But for those I guess it is true to an even greater extent. 
Interestingly, one trend I noticed when I was in the navy (well I keep saying navy, but the coastguard is more correct)..the ability for troubleshooting was absolutely exceptional and so was the willingness for initiative.
Much much more so than what I have experienced in civilian worklife.
Posted Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:58 pm GMT by ORGrinder
| Sean_in_NJ wrote: | | ORGrinder wrote: | | last i heard... socio-economic status and level of education weren't the same thing (perhaps loosley correlated... but not causal by any means). |
We should probably stop telling everyone that then.
"SORRY FOLKS! Clearly, college degrees play no role in your future earning potential. Nor does your family income play a role in the quality of your education."
"Please continue with your lives as you were." |
nice spin.
fyi re: your rather ignorant comment:
| Quote: | | The simple truth is that the poor and the uneducated are those that are sent to fight wars, because they're willing to do so sans other better opportunities. Without a conscript army, that will remain the case. |
these days, the opportunities for poor to get a college education are just as available (if not more so) for them as for anyone else. i know cuz i'm here helping them to gain that access. if there's a problem, it's with a perceived lack of access... not an actual one.
way to insult our military BTW. comfey there in your cushy office chair while men and women agree to risk their lives so you can talk smak about them... questioning their reasons for serving their country?
Posted Wed Nov 01, 2006 4:06 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| ORGrinder wrote: | | way to insult our military BTW. comfey there in your cushy office chair while men and women agree to risk their lives so you can talk smak about them... questioning their reasons for serving their country? |
Yeah, awesome place we live, isn't it?
Posted Wed Nov 01, 2006 4:17 pm GMT by ORGrinder
indeed... though sad that they're dying for the likes of you.
Posted Wed Nov 01, 2006 4:35 pm GMT by tame_deuces
Actually, I didn't interpret SeanNJ's comment as 'talking down'. To some extent what he said is true. Military work is often a solution for those who don't get jobs elsewhere, though this depends largely on demographic factors. I don't we have think 'ill' of soldiers in any way to realize this. For alot of people the military is just 'work'. There certainly are plenty of western countries with more a far more unruly force of soldiers than the US though.
But due to the way a military organization works, a force is just as defined by its soldiers as it is defined by its officers. A principle which has held true throughout history. As far as I know, the US army has an officer corps of very high standard both internationally and historically speaking. Especially the NCO system seems to work very nicely, in some regards reminding alot of older german solutions with a very professional base of lower ranked officers (without comparison beyond that).
Posted Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:00 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| tame_deuces wrote: | | Actually, I didn't interpret SeanNJ's comment as 'talking down'. |
Not at all. People do what they have to do to get by. I'm simply not sold on the idea that every person that selects military service as a career has done so out of honor, courage and duty.
| ORGrinder wrote: | | indeed... though sad that they're dying for the likes of you. |
I would agree if I thought that were the least bit true. Thankfully, I can sleep without that burden on my conscience.
Posted Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:02 pm GMT by ORGrinder
Posted Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:09 pm GMT by zinn0
I remember when this used to be a poker forum.
Posted Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:27 pm GMT by supafrey
To say that the poor have the exact same access to education is undeniably false.
To say that there's exactly as many comfortable/middleclass ppl in the military as there are poor people is undeniably false.
To say that there are as many people with college educations as those without them in the military is undeniably false.
To say that poor people couldn't be convinced to join the army purely for monetary reasons is undeniably false.
To say that the average person with lower education is just as smart as a person with higher education (like college) is undeniably false.
To say that the military doesn't actively recruit the poor and young is undeniably false.
Posted Thu Nov 02, 2006 8:53 am GMT by UrAteUp
I think we are all forgetting the big picture here which is online poker has been all but cutoff to us American players. Who gives a rats ass about some half wit presidental looser politican from Mass. Sure his remarks were bad no matter how you take them. This Kerry bashin belongs in non-poker chat were this can and most likely will turn into an all out war of words.
Posted Thu Nov 02, 2006 9:46 am GMT by supafrey
What he said was an accident. A bumbled joke from a zombie-like politician. It's not a big deal. Get over it.
Posted Thu Nov 02, 2006 11:34 am GMT by ORGrinder
| supa wrote: | To say that the poor have the exact same access to education is undeniably false.
To say that there's exactly as many comfortable/middleclass ppl in the military as there are poor people is undeniably false.
To say that there are as many people with college educations as those without them in the military is undeniably false.
To say that poor people couldn't be convinced to join the army purely for monetary reasons is undeniably false.
To say that the average person with lower education is just as smart as a person with higher education (like college) is undeniably false.
To say that the military doesn't actively recruit the poor and young is undeniably false. |
One or more of your statemens here (as usual) are undeniably false.
Posted Thu Nov 02, 2006 11:50 am GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| ORGrinder wrote: | | One or more of your statemens here (as usual) are undeniably false. |
Oh yeah? Well my dad could beat up your dad.
Posted Thu Nov 02, 2006 11:52 am GMT by snoogins47
| ORGrinder wrote: | | One or more of your statemens here (as usual) are undeniably false. |
We will leave determining which one (or more) is being referred to as an exercise for the reader.
Posted Thu Nov 02, 2006 12:14 pm GMT by ORGrinder
| snoogins47 wrote: | | ORGrinder wrote: | | One or more of your statemens here (as usual) are undeniably false. |
We will leave determining which one (or more) is being referred to as an exercise for the reader. |
 - it's like a choose your own adventure!
Posted Fri Nov 03, 2006 2:43 pm GMT by Alaskadude
Bottom line as I see it is this.
Kerry, made a stupid comment and it doesn't matter how he tries to spin it, he showed his contempt for those he feels are "less fortunate" intellectually than he is. His comment also groups all military members into one large herd too stupid to avoid service. He should know better than to generalize.
Or, maybe he's on the right track here and making ignorant blanket statements is the way to go. After all, everyone knows that all Democrats are elitist, gay, bleeding heart liberals that are only interested in taxing the rest of us, (not themselves) to death in order to fund their favorite welfare programs.
Now, shuffle up and deal.
Posted Fri Nov 03, 2006 2:43 pm GMT by supafrey
You're dense.
He was making a bad joke about bush and missed out on one word in his sentence. Considering he has the public speaking skills of a zombie this isn't that hard to imagine.
Lets repeat: He wasn't saying anything about the military.
Posted Fri Nov 03, 2006 2:43 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| Alaskadude wrote: | | Kerry, made a stupid comment and it doesn't matter how he tries to spin it, he showed his contempt for those he feels are "less fortunate" intellectually than he is. |
I do that every day. I'm doing it right now.
| Alaskadude wrote: | | His comment also groups all military members into one large herd too stupid to avoid service. He should know better than to generalize. |
He didn't. He made this comments in direct reference to the people to whom he was speaking. It's everyone else that generalized. This is how the argument went:
Kerry: If you're not smart, you may have to join the army as your job.
Everyone Else: Oh, so everyone in the army is not smart.
Kerry: Uh, I mean Bush isn't smart (but he may be smarter than the schmoe that came up with this lame excuse)
To say that some less intelligent people join the military and subsequently wind up in Iraq does not mean that everyone in Iraq is unintelligent. This is the type of argument made by...unintelligent people.
| Alaskadude wrote: | | Or, maybe he's on the right track here and making ignorant blanket statements is the way to go. After all, everyone knows that all Democrats are elitist, gay, bleeding heart liberals that are only interested in taxing the rest of us, (not themselves) to death in order to fund their favorite welfare programs. |
And Republicans are only interested in fetuses until they're born. Pre-born, you're fine. Pre-school, you're f*ck. They only want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers.
Now go bang an Eskimo.
| supa wrote: | | Lets repeat: He wasn't saying anything about the military. |
Of course he was. Don't be naive.
Posted Fri Nov 03, 2006 2:43 pm GMT by ORGrinder
| supa wrote: | You're dense.
He was making a bad joke about bush and missed out on one word in his sentence. Considering he has the public speaking skills of a zombie this isn't that hard to imagine. |
i can't believe i'm about to say this....
100% correct supa. clearly he was intending to cap on bush. he botched a (stupid) joke. the part that removed all doubt of his idiocy was his follow up comments where he lit off into his little tirade. whether he needed to or not, this is politics and he was an idiot to not come out right away with a "sincere" apology... especially considering how close to the election this is. by being a moron AFTER the botched joke, he likely did more to help his opposition than hinder.
Posted Fri Nov 03, 2006 2:43 pm GMT by Alaskadude
| Sean_in_NJ wrote: |
| Alaskadude wrote: | | Or, maybe he's on the right track here and making ignorant blanket statements is the way to go. After all, everyone knows that all Democrats are elitist, gay, bleeding heart liberals that are only interested in taxing the rest of us, (not themselves) to death in order to fund their favorite welfare programs. |
And Republicans are only interested in fetuses until they're born. Pre-born, you're fine. Pre-school, you're f*ck. They only want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers.
Now go bang an Eskimo.
|
LMAO Touched a nerve did I? Dude, it was sarcasm. As far as the rest of your post is concerned, I figure it was just a weak attempt to get a rise out of me. In any event it failed. As I said at the end of my last post;
Shuffle up and deal.
Posted Tue Nov 07, 2006 5:02 pm GMT by flafishy
So when will they arrest Doyle?
Posted Tue Nov 07, 2006 6:52 pm GMT by Johny
| flafishy wrote: | | So when will they arrest Doyle? |
I heard they had some narks in the Big Game, so maybe sooner than expected.
Posted Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:15 am GMT by UrAteUp
| Johny wrote: | | flafishy wrote: | | So when will they arrest Doyle? |
I heard they had some narks in the Big Game, so maybe sooner than expected. |
I just knew Jennifer Harman was more then a cute face and great tush...damn her....
Posted Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:07 pm GMT by vyni
I'm sure Doyle is nothing but a face associated with doyles room... likely paid for the use of his name, contracts to promote and make appearances, etc.
News of tribeca skins, figured this would be place to throw it...
Doyles and Golden Palace walking away from the US market...
Remarks from tribeca...
List of all Tribeca skins...
Tribeca poker network, bought up by play tech.
But, here's another article that contradicts.... but I believe they're simply referring to the time to implement and want to hold on to US players until it's applied.
The fact playtech has bought them and is publicly traded in the UK though... I'ld think it would be implemented pretty damn fast.
Tribeca says they'll have further info announced as it develops. I wouldnt be surprised if they waited until the very last minute to disclose details though (holding on as long as possible kinda thang)
Posted Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:15 pm GMT by ORGrinder
well... what a handy koinkadink that they pissed me off and i closed my account with them a few days ago. hehehe. i hope they go broke.
Posted Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:19 pm GMT by UrAteUp
SOB...well looks like Doyle's Room is soon to be no more. I didn't have a chance to log in since Friday morning but I will check and see if they have shut it off as of now when I get home. If so the SOBs better send me my $28....
Posted Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:03 pm GMT by UrAteUp
Doyles Room is working perfectly. I just racked in about 1/8 of my roll in a matter of 30 minutes, so it must be working perfectly...
Posted Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:34 pm GMT by Dave B
| UrAteUp wrote: | | Doyles Room is working perfectly. I just racked in about 1/8 of my roll in a matter of 30 minutes, so it must be working perfectly... |
So what are you going to do with the new $1.26?
Posted Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:50 am GMT by UrAteUp
| Dave B wrote: | | UrAteUp wrote: | | Doyles Room is working perfectly. I just racked in about 1/8 of my roll in a matter of 30 minutes, so it must be working perfectly... |
So what are you going to do with the new $1.26? |
Play with it...what else...probably play a few SNG's with it and turn it into a few more dollars. Then just keep building it.
Posted Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:06 pm GMT by BMG13
| ORGrinder wrote: |
these days, the opportunities for poor to get a college education are just as available (if not more so) for them as for anyone else. i know cuz i'm here helping them to gain that access. if there's a problem, it's with a perceived lack of access... not an actual one.
way to insult our military BTW. comfey there in your cushy office chair while men and women agree to risk their lives so you can talk smak about them... questioning their reasons for serving their country? |
I love how one white college student sees 15 scholarships for a minority and assumes that it means college is more available to the minorities. However, not only does a few thousand scholarships NOT make college affordable... you are assuming that it's easy for minorities to GET PASSED HIGH SCHOOL and still be ABLE to go into college for 6 years.
To say education is great for minorities because of a few scholarships is outright stupid. Minorities are usually concentrated in densely populated areas, where school funding is from the local land taxes and such. Poor area + lots of kids = horrible education. Not many can get through elementary school, then high school, and then be able to move away for six years. Not to mention taking the SAT and all those other tests that are specifically geared towards white middle-upper class citizens. To be successful, you need to know the CULTURE of the test-makers and what the test is geared towards. The SAT screens all their questions, and guess what? They throw out questions where blacks score higher than whites.
So, before you say anymore stupid crap about socio-economic status and education... go talk to someone who knows what they are talking about. As in, someone that STUDIES our culture. Maybe a cultural anthropologist? Or go read Distant Mirrors, a book by several anthropologists from OTHER countries. After all, the best way to study a fish bowl, is from outside the fishbowl... not inside.
So, go up to an anthropologist with a PhD, tell them "minorities have more access to education than whites" and watch 'em laugh at you or cry for your silliness.
Posted Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:06 pm GMT by ORGrinder
| BMG13 wrote: | | ORGrinder wrote: |
these days, the opportunities for poor to get a college education are just as available (if not more so) for them as for anyone else. i know cuz i'm here helping them to gain that access. if there's a problem, it's with a perceived lack of access... not an actual one. |
I love how one white college student sees 15 scholarships for a minority and assumes that it means college is more available to the minorities. However, not only does a few thousand scholarships NOT make college affordable... you are assuming that it's easy for minorities to GET PASSED HIGH SCHOOL and still be ABLE to go into college for 6 years.
To say education is great for minorities because of a few scholarships.... BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA |
LOL
can you read? i WORK for a university you moron, i'm not a student. i think i know a bit more about what IS and ISN'T available to potential college students than you do, which is what my post was regarding... since it's my job to get them here.
my statement is 100% accurate.
nice blather though. kudos.
p.s. a wee bit bigoted are we?
Posted Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:46 pm GMT by supafrey
please tell me you don't have any part in educating kids, ORG. Something tells me you don't - definitely not for any Arts program, that's for sure. I'm willing to put money on it.
Posted Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:55 pm GMT by ORGrinder
i'm not a professor... if that's what you mean. i do work for the various arts and letters departments though (amongst others).
i educate you all the time though supa... so in that sense i'm doing my part to cure ignorance (mainly yours).
Posted Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:57 pm GMT by supafrey
so does that guy on the corner with the megaphone who smells like piss and screams all day.
Posted Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:59 pm GMT by ORGrinder
| supafrey wrote: | | so does that guy on the corner with the megaphone who smells like piss and screams all day. |
that sounds about right... considering your level of ignorance, just about everyone could educate you in some way.
Posted Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:04 pm GMT by supafrey
I'm glad you've lumped yourself with the Urinator.
Posted Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:14 pm GMT by ORGrinder
in the sense that we're both smarter than you... indeed, i did.
we both pee too.
Posted Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:17 pm GMT by BMG13
| ORGrinder wrote: | | BMG13 wrote: | | ORGrinder wrote: |
these days, the opportunities for poor to get a college education are just as available (if not more so) for them as for anyone else. i know cuz i'm here helping them to gain that access. if there's a problem, it's with a perceived lack of access... not an actual one. |
I love how one white college student sees 15 scholarships for a minority and assumes that it means college is more available to the minorities. However, not only does a few thousand scholarships NOT make college affordable... you are assuming that it's easy for minorities to GET PASSED HIGH SCHOOL and still be ABLE to go into college for 6 years.
To say education is great for minorities because of a few scholarships.... BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA |
LOL
can you read? i WORK for a university you moron, i'm not a student. i think i know a bit more about what IS and ISN'T available to potential college students than you do, which is what my post was regarding... since it's my job to get them here.
my statement is 100% accurate.
nice blather though. kudos.
p.s. a wee bit bigoted are we? |
I didn't say you were a student, I said how I love that white students go on scholarship sites and find out that there's more scholarships for minorities than whites. But you just proved my point. You think the little amount of scholarships you offer means the minorities have a greater chance of getting into colleges than whites, which is completely false.
Your statement couldn't be any more false. There IS an actual lack of access and a thousand scholarships WILL NOT change it. Again, instead of thinking your little job entitles you as an expert... go ask an social anthropologist prof. at your school. They will laugh their asses off at your little "100% true" statement.
Posted Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:20 pm GMT by ORGrinder
i made no mention, ever, about scholarships... i spoke to access.
and i am correct... despite what you choose to believe. access is greater today than it's ever been. which is what i said. you're the one who's choosing to turn this into a race war... which clearly speaks to your character.
Posted Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:22 pm GMT by BMG13
| ORGrinder wrote: | | i made no mention, ever, about scholarships... i spoke to access. |
And so did I. But it's OK to ignore everything I've said and continue to only pick out the parts you want to without making any sort of point.
Posted Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:24 pm GMT by ORGrinder
you're the one who was questioning my statement... i'm simply responding to your comments. you clearly have an axe to grind with white folk. i'm not going to entertain that argument with you... it's pointless.
Posted Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:26 pm GMT by BMG13
| ORGrinder wrote: | i made no mention, ever, about scholarships... i spoke to access.
and i am correct... despite what you choose to believe. access is greater today than it's ever been. which is what i said. you're the one who's choosing to turn this into a race war... which clearly speaks to your character. |
Ok you are editing like crazy... but you just changed your wording again.
Earlier:
| Quote: | | these days, the opportunities for poor to get a college education are just as available (if not more so) for them as for anyone else. |
That's not the same as MORE THAN IT'S EVER BEEN. No one can argue the access is GREATER now, but you said the poor have GREATER access THAN the non-poor. Which is absolutely false.
I'm not turning this into a race war.... I don't know where you are getting that. I'm just stating facts. But you keep assigning these labels, which truly speaks of your character.
Posted Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:27 pm GMT by BMG13
| ORGrinder wrote: | | you're the one who was questioning my statement... i'm simply responding to your comments. you clearly have an axe to grind with white folk. i'm not going to entertain that argument with you... it's pointless. |
It has nothing to do with white folks. I'm talking about the different levels of access, yet you failed to read my entire post and simply found "white" and "black" and said "OMG A RACE WAR!"
Try re-reading. If you need help, I'm sure your school has a tutor center.
Posted Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:37 pm GMT by supafrey
| Quote: | | access is greater today than it's ever been. |
Earlier you said they were comparable across economic status - nothing to do with improvement/degradation over time. You're backpeddling and misquoting yourself.
But let me guess - I hate white people too, so my point is moot?
Posted Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:40 pm GMT by ORGrinder
wait... supa? is that you? LOL
i edited my original comment? interesting since it's the same as it was when you first quoted it.
at any rate... you're the one talking about "white kids" and "minorities"... i was speaking of ALL poor folk (yes... white ppl can be poor too). hence, you're turning it from a socio-economic issue to a race issue.
my statement stands. any young person who wishes to attend college these days can indeed do so... assuming they didn't flunk high school. i never suggested colleges were willing to give everyone free rides. i know for a fact that if you do well in school, you can goto college.
if you're suggestion that more white kids get free rides (full scholarships or whatever) then i can't speak to that. i've not seen it myself, nor have i experienced it first hand. i had to borrow money to complete my own education and don't see anything wrong with asking others to do the same.
Posted Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:53 pm GMT by BMG13
| ORGrinder wrote: | wait... supa? is that you? LOL
i edited my original comment? interesting since it's the same as it was when you first quoted it. |
I don't mean editing as in changing comments... I meant as in adding. It's hard to respond when your post grows each second
| Quote: | | at any rate... you're the one talking about "white kids" and "minorities"... i was speaking of ALL poor folk (yes... white ppl can be poor too). hence, you're turning it from a socio-economic issue to a race issue. |
Of course anyone can be poor... but the bigger % of poor families are minorities. Not to mention it still holds true for culture. Poor whites will score higher on a SAT test than poor blacks. Whites made the tests and threw out questions where blacks scored high. This is the simple truth.
| Quote: | | my statement stands. any young person who wishes to attend college these days can indeed do so... assuming they didn't flunk high school. i never suggested colleges were willing to give everyone free rides. i know for a fact that if you do well in school, you can goto college. |
Assuming they didn't flunk high school... that's great. Again, this part wasn't in your older posts. The truth is, more POOR people fail high school than rich kids. That's like saying everyone in America can be the CEO of Microsoft..............
(12 posts later)
assuming they are wealthy, well-spoken in the "standard English vernacular", have a college education, previous business experience, aren't gay, never been to jail.
| Quote: | | if you're suggestion that more white kids get free rides (full scholarships or whatever) then i can't speak to that. i've not seen it myself, nor have i experienced it first hand. i had to borrow money to complete my own education and don't see anything wrong with asking others to do the same. |
That's not what I suggested. Again, ACCESS doesn't mean scholarships and has nothing to do with full-ride scholarships.
BTW, I'm white and borrowing money to complete college. However, unlike you, I'm not blind. I know what's going on around me. Being born white has invisible privileges that we aren't supposed to discuss. You are living proof of that.
Posted Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:56 pm GMT by tame_deuces
So the world is unfair? 
Posted Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:57 pm GMT by aaronw
| BMG13 wrote: | | Whites made the tests and threw out questions where blacks scored high. This is the simple truth. |
Any proof of this? Or are you just assuming? You have a link or anything?
Posted Wed Nov 15, 2006 5:15 pm GMT by zinn0
| tame_deuces wrote: | | So the world is unfair? |
Thats not what they are saying at all!
 
Posted Wed Nov 15, 2006 5:31 pm GMT by BMG13
It's in a couple of text books, but I don't have any online sites... I'll search for it. But for now Collegeboard (the makers of the SAT) states:
"The SAT was designed with questions that reflect or show your reasoning abilities, not just the amount of information you've accumulated during school."
That's a big assumption, and any psychology book will tell you that IQ tests ALL assume one thing: that you know the culture of the test makers. Look a little further and you can find out that whites, blacks, hispanics, asians, etc all have different cultures. Not to mention different languages and etc. Standard English is basically a white, professional "west-coast" way of speaking, and it's what is prevalent in tests. There are no black vernacular versions of tests. There's no southern-US tests. There's no Boston version of the test.
Quick searches show:
"The SAT has always favored students who can afford coaching over those who cannot, students from wealthy suburban schools over those from poor urban school systems, and men over women."
"NCAA Proposition 16: The National Collegiate Athletic Association denies athletic scholarships and interscholastic competition to first-year students whose SAT I or ACT scores fall short of a fixed score cutoff. Prop. 16, as the requirement is known, disqualifies a disproportionate number of otherwise academically qualified African Americans. A race discrimination lawsuit against the NCAA, filed by excluded student athletes, is now pending in federal court."
The SAT is seriously flawed... read the wikipedia and you will know that they believed it was an INHERIT test. Again, the problem with standardized tests trying to grade inherited intelligence is that you need to know the culture.
Think about this... in the Army they used a test for non-english speaking people where they were tested by "completing the picture." There would be a picture of 2 cats and a sun behind it with one of the cats having a shadow. You were supposed to draw in the shadow on the other cat. However, there were parts like a house missing a chimney and a kid eating cereal with a spoon missing. This assumes that you think that all houses have a chimney and that you eat food by yourself with a spoon.
From the wikipedia:
"The object of the question was to find the pair of terms that have the relationship most similar to the relationship between "runner" and "marathon". The answer, between "oarsman" and "regatta", came under fire."
"The question relies upon students knowing the meaning of the two terms, referring to a sport popular only among those of relatively high income. According to one source, while 53% of white students correctly answered the question, only 22% of black students did." This question was included."
Well, I'm gonna step out... I only looked this up online for 5 minutes. There are examples where the roles were reversed and the questions get omitted.
Posted Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:52 pm GMT by supafrey
Please don't ever use wikipedia to prove a point. Ever. It's laughable.
Posted Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:55 pm GMT by BMG13
| supafrey wrote: | | Please don't ever use wikipedia to prove a point. Ever. It's laughable. |
Why? Because people create it?
Guess what... the books you read in school are created by people too!
Posted Wed Nov 15, 2006 9:00 pm GMT by supafrey
| BMG13 wrote: | | supafrey wrote: | | Please don't ever use wikipedia to prove a point. Ever. It's laughable. |
Why? Because people create it?
Guess what... the books you read in school are created by people too! |
No because the amount of inaccurate information on it makes the entire source illegitimate. Internet nerds may think it's the next revolution in communal intelligence - it's not. Take ANY subject you know very well and read the wiki on it. You're gonna laugh. Alot.
My professors now almost have to remind the class before EVERY essay to not use it as an academic source because of how many stupid kids there are in the class.
Posted Wed Nov 15, 2006 9:44 pm GMT by BMG13
Certain wiki entries will be false, sure. That doesn't mean all of them are.
Most are actually copy pasted from encyclopedias and other sources and are pretty well documented. I only know of two professors who have mentioned it, and they both sanctioned it.
Posted Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:51 pm GMT by tame_deuces
| supafrey wrote: | | BMG13 wrote: | | supafrey wrote: | | Please don't ever use wikipedia to prove a point. Ever. It's laughable. |
Why? Because people create it?
Guess what... the books you read in school are created by people too! |
No because the amount of inaccurate information on it makes the entire source illegitimate. Internet nerds may think it's the next revolution in communal intelligence - it's not. Take ANY subject you know very well and read the wiki on it. You're gonna laugh. Alot.
My professors now almost have to remind the class before EVERY essay to not use it as an academic source because of how many stupid kids there are in the class. |
Saying that wiki'ing is flawed and claiming it does not represent the next revolution isn't related statements.
And wiki'ing allready is a revolution in project management and information exchange for groups.
And it has nothing to do with academic standards.
Posted Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:42 pm GMT by supafrey
yes but he was trying to use it to prove an academic point ... socio-economic factors in SAT format and substance. That's idiotic.
Posted Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:04 am GMT by tame_deuces
| supafrey wrote: | | yes but he was trying to use it to prove an academic point ... socio-economic factors in SAT format and substance. That's idiotic. |
Well, I'll agree that using Wikipedia as an academic source is useless.
Posted Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:17 am GMT by BMG13
| supafrey wrote: | | yes but he was trying to use it to prove an academic point ... socio-economic factors in SAT format and substance. That's idiotic. |
I clearly stated that I just looked it up for 5 minutes. Wikipedia doesn't automatically make an argument invalid. Wikipedia is a great starting point for most things. But I guess encyclopedias, news articles, scientific journals, and books by accredited authors are all false. Why, what's the point in talking if everything in the world is false?
You are making just as big as of a fallacy by assuming that every wiki is false as the people who assume every wiki is true. You should probably commit suicide now since you have nothing to base your life on.
Posted Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:43 am GMT by supafrey
| BMG13 wrote: | | supafrey wrote: | | yes but he was trying to use it to prove an academic point ... socio-economic factors in SAT format and substance. That's idiotic. |
I clearly stated that I just looked it up for 5 minutes. Wikipedia doesn't automatically make an argument invalid. Wikipedia is a great starting point for most things. But I guess encyclopedias, news articles, scientific journals, and books by accredited authors are all false. Why, what's the point in talking if everything in the world is false?
You are making just as big as of a fallacy by assuming that every wiki is false as the people who assume every wiki is true. You should probably commit suicide now since you have nothing to base your life on. |
Talking about fallacies, way to strawman.
If 50% of wikis are false, it's not a reputable source. If 40%, it's still not. I never said 100% of them are, but there's more than enough shit on that site that using ANY of the entries as a reputable source is silly. Do you really think comparing wikis to journals (something that gets checked by three profs, on average, for the more reputable ones) is valid, like, at all?
Comparing papers + studies published in peer-reviewed literature to something a myspacer wrote on wiki in between posing for pictures is a joke.
Posted Thu Nov 16, 2006 2:37 am GMT by BMG13
Most of the more popular wikis (with tons of information) have citations. Most are copied word for word from journals and reputable sources. There's not a whole lot of wikis that I've came across (besides ones on the espanol wiki for my spanish paper) that AREN'T copied verbatim from a source. Then you can scroll down and check out that source for yourself.
Wiki is a great place to start off any type of general research. I never stated anywhere that it's 100% true and the greatest site. I have no problems with people posting wikis because I can go to the site and check it out myself and check with the sources. Maybe you are just used to the old-school wiki where it was basically 1337-speak everywhere.... it's pretty well-updated now.
Anyways- I stated the information BEFORE looking on wikipedia, and guess what... it confirmed it. If I could find one of the books and their website I would post that, but I'm too lazy. At least I'm giving you the SOURCE and the info and not just randomly attacking the tiniest part of a post and ignoring the main content... not to mention you didn't even check to see if the information is true or false.
How about contributing instead of taking out those tiny parts and giving us your opinion on it.
Posted Thu Nov 16, 2006 11:54 am GMT by supafrey
| Quote: | | Anyways- I stated the information BEFORE looking on wikipedia, and guess what... it confirmed it. |
The fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam. For all anyone knows, you read that on Wiki before, remembered it vaguely, stated it, then went back to wiki and confirmed it. Who's using fallacious arguments now?
Posted Thu Nov 16, 2006 4:31 pm GMT by Sid Lambert
somebody did a study on the accuracy of wikipedia vs the accuracy of encyclopedia brittanica according to a panel of good number of 'experts'...they found that both of them had about the same error rate. Yes, technically wikipedia had more errors, but thats only cuz the articles are on average much larger...i dont have the study in front of me, but i'm sure some searching could turn it up....besides that tho, following the sources via wikipedia is a great way to figure shit out
Posted Thu Nov 16, 2006 4:45 pm GMT by Dave B
History is written by the victors. Historians have often wrote what made good press and not what was most important.
Current history books in the US schools are being re-written to include acheivements of minorities and other protected classes, even if more important events are being left out. After all, it is more important to make people feel good about themselves than it is to tell the truth and educate, isnt it?
Posted Tue Nov 21, 2006 2:03 am GMT by BMG13
| Dave B wrote: | History is written by the victors. Historians have often wrote what made good press and not what was most important.
Current history books in the US schools are being re-written to include acheivements of minorities and other protected classes, even if more important events are being left out. After all, it is more important to make people feel good about themselves than it is to tell the truth and educate, isnt it? |
Yeah, because the books will leave out presidents 2-41 to cover women and blacks getting the right to vote.
Get real, history books are about HISTORY. It's not like they can only pick as many events they can fit on 30 pages. Books are huge and will still cover the most important events in history, which happen to involve minorities too. Maybe if you spent a little more time in school you'd learn how to spell achievements.
Posted Tue Nov 21, 2006 2:30 am GMT by raisebot
| zinn0 wrote: | | I remember when this used to be a poker forum. |
Seriously, why dont you guys take this to the off-topic area or something?
That way, if Doyle actually DOES get arrested, I dont have to read through 7 pages of discussions ranging from John Kerry, whites vs blacks, to the validity of wikis, just to find out the latest scoop.
Posted Tue Nov 21, 2006 1:32 pm GMT by Alaskadude
| raisebot wrote: | | zinn0 wrote: | | I remember when this used to be a poker forum. |
Seriously, why dont you guys take this to the off-topic area or something?
That way, if Doyle actually DOES get arrested, I dont have to read through 7 pages of discussions ranging from John Kerry, whites vs blacks, to the validity of wikis... |
... and don't forget the spelling lessons.
As one of the guilty parties, I agree that it should be moved.
Posted Mon Nov 27, 2006 1:24 pm GMT by UrAteUp
| Alaskadude wrote: | | raisebot wrote: | | zinn0 wrote: | | I remember when this used to be a poker forum. |
Seriously, why dont you guys take this to the off-topic area or something?
That way, if Doyle actually DOES get arrested, I dont have to read through 7 pages of discussions ranging from John Kerry, whites vs blacks, to the validity of wikis... |
... and don't forget the spelling lessons.
As one of the guilty parties, I agree that it should be moved. |
Third that notion. You little kids should learn to fight nicely. If not just meet up...beat the hell out of each other and move on...
Posted Mon Nov 27, 2006 4:29 pm GMT by BeerWench13
Wow. That was a great deal of reading.
I'm a 1/16 Native American female. I scored a 1460 on my SAT's and graduated valedictorian with a 3.998 GPA. Had I been 1/8 Native American, I could've gotten a scholarship to college instead of having to dish out the money myself.
Discuss.
I just couldn't resist.
I don't think Doyle will be arrested, personally. He's not an owner and I seriously doubt he has need to make deposits. Playing online has been illegal in Nevada for many years according to wikipedia (there I go again, stirring the pot). What he receives from Doyle's room is promotional pay much like Tiger gets from Buick or MJ got from Nike. As long as he pays his taxes (a.k.a. the government gets their cut) I doubt he will have to worry.
|
|
