Posted Tue Mar 13, 2007 3:28 pm GMT by wEbMaStEr
Jamie Gold speaking frankly about mistakes he's made, the pressures of winning the WSOP, the lawsuit and his poker abilities.
http://www.rawvegas.tv/watch.php?vID=de5db774b9da10ffd56a76aaf842d4
Seems quite sincere about what he's saying. Hrmmm maybe the guy isn't a total douche after all 
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 Tue Mar 13, 2007 3:55 pm GMT by MasterMike
Well i think he was an ass but has changed since. Can someone explain how the money situation worked, because didnt he say he would split his winnings like 50/50 with someone?
Also, what did he do so poorly after winning. How did he screw himself up?
Posted Tue Mar 13, 2007 4:17 pm GMT by jimmer
| MasterMike wrote: | | Also, what did he do so poorly after winning. How did he screw himself up? |
Unsure about this bit but
| MasterMike wrote: | | Can someone explain how the money situation worked, because didnt he say he would split his winnings like 50/50 with someone? |
Theres this bloke called Bruce Crispin-Leister (maybe spelt wrong). He claimed that Jamie Gold promised to pay him half of whatever he won at the WSOP.
They had this casual chat one day in which Jamie asked Bruce if he could get some celebrities to the WSOP wearing Bodog (i think) clothing. If he could, Jamie would get bodog to pay for their entry. I think this is the right way round
The problem was this was all agreed over a few beers or something. It was totally a gentlemans agreement. Nothing was in writing
Of course, when Jamie eventally wins, all hell breaks lose.
Posted Tue Mar 13, 2007 5:12 pm GMT by wEbMaStEr
| jimmer wrote: |
The problem was this was all agreed over a few beers or something. It was totally a gentlemans agreement. Nothing was in writing
|
Altho allegedly there was a voicemail left on Leysers machine from Gold from just before the final table re-stating that Leyser would get 50%
It was eventually settled out of court for an "undisclosed sum"
Posted Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:06 pm GMT by supafrey
there's no such thing as settling out of court for a "disclosed sum". that's not how settlements work.
more speculation and gossip though, plzzzzz! this is like an amateur version of the News, Views and Gossip forum...
Posted Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:26 pm GMT by Geno
| supafrey wrote: | | more speculation and gossip though, plzzzzz! |
What is wrong with speculation and gossip on a forum pray tell?
Posted Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:30 pm GMT by supafrey
probably nothing if it wasn't a rehash of news from like 6 months ago =)
Posted Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:36 pm GMT by Casey ATB
| supafrey wrote: | | there's no such thing as settling out of court for a "disclosed sum". that's not how settlements work. |
wEbMaStEr stated "undisclosed sum," not 'disclosed' sum. And yes, I believe they do work that way. It's a fairly common practice.
Posted Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:39 pm GMT by supafrey
I was alluding to the fact that what he said was redundant and only put in "quotation marks" to make it look "shadier" when in reality "anyone" that does a big cash "settlement" and doesn't include a "confidentiality" "agreement" is a "moron".
Posted Tue Mar 13, 2007 7:07 pm GMT by raisebot
Quotation marks are generally used to quote someone, not to give the impression of making something shadier.
But I congratulate you on bringing yet another thread off topic.
Posted Tue Mar 13, 2007 7:11 pm GMT by wEbMaStEr
The term "undisclosed sum" was put in quotation marks because it was a quotation obviously! Any other reason for their use is merely a product of a paranoid, narcassistic mind.
And yes, the case was settled several months ago but obviously MasterMike was not aware of that or he would not have written "Can someone explain how the money situation worked, because didnt he say he would split his winnings like 50/50 with someone?"
Now note the use of quotation marks again there, that is because I was quoting and not for any other reason that a fevered brain may have dreamed up.
In future I suggest you read threads before you comment on other users motivation in posting
k?
k
Oh, and as for speculation and gossip, the fact that an out of court settlement was reached is a matter of recorded fact a recorded fact that Gold makes reference to in this video.
I don't see any other speculation or gossip in this thread do you? Unless of course you refer to your speculation on my intentions in using quotation marks?
Posted Tue Mar 13, 2007 7:49 pm GMT by supafrey
do... do you know the definition for the word narcissistic?
Posted Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:12 pm GMT by efram
supafrey/Pavelzzzz/rude-one, I find it interesting that you consistently find a way to belittle people, their opinions, their posts, without regard to anything or anyone except your own egocentric point of view. Why?
Seriously, how come?
Were your parents mean to you as a child?
Do you get some sort of self esteem from being "the man" who believes his opinions are the one true way?
Does it make you feel good about yourself to be so self-righteous?
Do you feel empowered by stating your opinions, and they are merely that, as if they are the only point of view in the perspective of a large group of people?
Has it ever ocurred to you Supa, that your point of view is just that, yours. Maybe you should take a moment to really think about that. Really. Try to realize that other people are entitled to "waste" their time as they choose, to post on a forum as they want to and respond to others' posts as they choose? If you don't choose, wouldn't it be better to just not post rather than subject us to your rudeness?
You do realize you are quite rude don't you?
Do you enjoy being rude, because it appears you do, which is really a poor way to exist in life.
Why is it that you are unable read posts and if they don't interest you, don't respond?
Why do you feel the need to debase people's posts and/or responses to posts?
I think theres some pathology going on beyond what you've ever explored in yourself?
Get some therapy man. Seriously.
You've get a chip on your shoulder the size of a small mountain and its rather annoying how it comes across to people. Dare I speak for others?
Life is too short to be so overly concerned with how others want to spend their time? If you want to control things to the point of rediculousness, control yourself and your seemingly out-of-control ability to spew your rudeness onto others in this forum.
Given the rhetoric which you have displayed at times on this forum you clearly are a man with some type of intelligence.
If you really want to impress, why don't you turn that brain in on itself, otherwise known as introspection, and figure out where all the negativity/need to control/self-admiration/egocentricity is coming from.
I think you'd be better off in the long run if you gave that a shot.
Hows that for an opinion?
Once you discover the nature of your egocentricity, you can "waste" our time with an explanation. Perhaps it wouldn't be a waste. I know I'd be impressed if it ever came to that.
I'll provide you a subject title for the future post;
Supa's Ephiphany, AT LAST SOME INTROSPECTION
or how about this;
I've learned something about myself, I've been rude, I'm sorry
Posted Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:58 pm GMT by supafrey
how... how long did it take you to type that?
and do you really think all opinions are created equal?
edit: No challenge for rolls, btw? I expected Zeroswarm part two or something.
Posted Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:15 pm GMT by efram
supa wrote
| Quote: | how... how long did it take you to type that?
and do you really think all opinions are created equal? |
I type around 82 wpm.
add approx 10 minutes for work interuptions.
subtract roughly 10.3 wpm for error correcting (if I'm going to flame someone I want my words spelled correctly), add 3 minute for rewrites, and approximately 2 minutes for proof reading.
You do the math.
Are all opinions created equal?
Interesting question.
Given the definition of opinion one can say that opinions are not "created equal".
However, in the context of your opinions re: other's usage of time, clearly you are bound to this definition:
An opinion is a belief or judgment that falls short of absolute conviction, certainty, or positive knowledge.
You cannot know what would be a waste of time to me, or anyone else exluding those in close enough proximity to you who may verbally or otherwise declare what is specifically a waste of time to them personally. Given this lack of knowledge you possess regarding my, and others', personal use of time, your opinion is nothing more than rudimentary blather which is a waste of time in and of itself.
Stop wasting my time please.
Posted Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:36 pm GMT by snoogins47
Supa's egocentrism may be one thing, but it pales into comparison to the implied arrogance of performing some armchair psychological profiling based on, of all things, message board activity.
As for the 'greater issue:' Perhaps Supa is quite often rude, arrogant, and unnecessarily combative here on THP, but he's quite excellent at getting under peoples' skin, which leads to knee-jerk responses that masquerade as being fair, balanced, and even sometimes go so far as to pretend that they're "being noble" and "not stooping to his level," when in fact they're as caustic, if not moreso, than the catalyst. By the way, these quotes were totally intended for shadiness reasons.
"LOL what you said/did is absolutely stupid, dumb dumb dumb dumby stupid."
"That's all you ever say you pompous a**hole, stop it with your ad hominem attacks you dirty cheese-eating ass-spelunker. We don't need assholes like you making a**hole attacks on non-assholes like us, you a**hole. I will not resort to a**hole tactics assholes like you use when you call me an a**hole. Band!"
Supa's forum personality is like kryptonite to the self-conscious. He triggers, and makes sure to fuel, the ultra-defensive attacks that keep coming his way...
But in the end, Kryptonite did nothing to anybody... except Superman.
| Quote: | | Stop wasting my time please. |
I don't even think I need to address why I laughed at this.
Posted Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:32 pm GMT by efram
I love it
well done snoogins.
('Cept you got a little brown on your nose there.)
You were very correct in your perception of the hidden causticity of my post. I admit, I've (in your words) stooped to his level. I defend this stooping and the semi-insultant nature of it because that was my intention. I have grown tired of the | Quote: | | quite often rude, arrogant, and unnecessarily combative |
nature of supa's posts and felt like being equally, yet less obviously, combative in my own right.
My implied arrogance is +EV due to the nature of it.
| Quote: | Supa's egocentrism may be one thing, but it pales into comparison to the implied arrogance of performing some armchair psychological profiling
|
This is merely another opinion of which I respectfully disagree.
I think anything I say would pale in comparison to Supa's arrogance.
Funny you said that tho.
I did camouflage my arrogance as noble and come across, or attempt to, as the good guy coming to bat for all the forum people who suffer under the relentless attacks of Mr Arrogance himself, or should I say Mr. Kryptonite. You're right on the money there.
That was the intention.
I don't insult people on a regular, semi-regular or even irregular basis, nor am I rude intentionaly as much as I can help it, (arrogance arrogance arrogance) nor do I try to come across as arrogant, omnipotent or psychoanalitical unless I want to. NEWS FLASH!!
That was the intent there Mr Keen-Sense-For-The-Obvious. How else does a sudo phychoanalyst psychoanalize an arrogant, ego-centric but with arrogant egocentricity.
You know the old saying, fire with fire?
Or stooping.
Its good you stick up for him though, because he didn't want to take the time to do it himself, although I'm sure that may come in time, maybe not. Either way, its too bad becuase I bet it would be entertaining if nothing else.
I'm glad my closer | Quote: | | Stop wasting my time |
made you laugh. That was the intent.
Posted Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:39 pm GMT by tame_deuces
| snoogins47 wrote: | | which leads to knee-jerk responses that masquerade as being fair, balanced, and even sometimes go so far as to pretend that they're "being noble" and "not stooping to his level," when in fact they're as caustic, if not moreso, than the catalyst. By the way, these quotes were totally intended for shadiness reasons. |
Flamebaiting posts is the worst type of post you can make on a forum as it generates much more noise than any other type of post. Too much noise and a forum becomes useless. Even this post I write here is just 'noise'.
But never expect people to sit idly by or 'not stoop down' when they perceive an insult, an intended one or not, even if it is one we/you/someone think they/we/you deserve. Once conflict starts it is never going to end because someone is right or someone is wrong, like a more sensible debate could do. When I feel insulted on a forum or in real life I get really angry, and I'm never going to be ashamed or feel bad about that.
Apart from that we have a 'poker in television' forum on THP, and if all these types of post go there then everybody should go on their ways and be happy ever after.
Posted Wed Mar 14, 2007 1:08 am GMT by snoogins47
To be honest it's not totally that I'm sticking up for Supa, merely that I'm laughing at the silliness he manages to generate- much like I bet he himself does.
And I probably didn't mean to be quite as fire-breathing as I came off: especially
| Quote: |
"Supa's forum personality is like kryptonite to the self-conscious. He triggers, and makes sure to fuel, the ultra-defensive attacks that keep coming his way... " |
...since as with any remarks on human nature, the author succumbs to the pressures as well. The disparity between the nature and scope of Supa's flamebait as compared to the flame it inspires is really what gets me... though that's really a characteristic of any successful flamebaiting. We can use 'Supa's always been an a**hole' to justify these things, cite other past grievances... but there's no question that there's something absolutely hilarious about the fact that criticisms such as:
a)This is gossip and speculation
b)This is old news
c)Most settlements are 'undisclosed amounts'
Makes people flip out and open fire in a whole slew of diverse, deliciously hostile ways... Even people misinterpreting what he's saying, and criticising the faulty interpretation. Even if his past actions have brought about the situation, it's still funny that people will look for any possible reason to flip out on him.
| Quote: | | Flamebaiting posts is the worst type of post you can make on a forum as it generates much more noise than any other type of post. Too much noise and a forum becomes useless. Even this post I write here is just 'noise'. |
Well Tamesy, I agree with most of the assessment, with one exception: perhaps I'm weird, but I have always had a soft spot for flamebaiters/trolls, and to a lesser extent, assholes. I always feel like communities get a lot more interesting in their presence, and to be honest (and I think this is the case for a lot of the regulars) many people really keep coming back here/contributing more due to the community, than just trying to learn the most they can about poker.
And I guess, the initial point I was making is that the flamebaiter can't be blamed entirely for the flames that ensue, and in actuality more of the 'noise' comes from the folks that hate the flamebaiter for 'destroying the community' etc. and pontificate as hard as they possibly can at every opportunity.
Of course, even if all the other crap on the camel is what actually caused his back to break, there's still some a**hole who put that damned straw on there.
Mostly, it all boils down to my typical starry-eyed feel-good idealism: we're all gonna be assholes sometimes, we're all gonna be hypocrites... we're all gonna do something and then tomorrow tell somebody that they're a dick for doing it. I just want everybody to realize it. We're all stuck with whatever human biases (getting pissed off, defensive, yadda yadda) we've picked up over the years, but it'd be nice if people just acknowledged it sometimes... and holier-than-thou personal attacks on somebody in response to holier-than-thou attitudes don't really paint a very clear picture of self-awareness and understanding.
Or to put it in a much simpler way:
| Quote: | | But never expect people to sit idly by or 'not stoop down' when they perceive an insult, an intended one or not, even if it is one we/you/someone think they/we/you deserve. |
I don't, but I still feel justified in laughing at/calling out people who viciously fire back while insisting, both to themselves and to everybody else, that they're not firing back, because they're too good of a person to do so... even if I occasionally do it myself. Of course this is all pretty much noise too, since nobody reads these things anyway, and nothing will change. I'm not even totally sure I want it to change, as it's pretty entertaining in this almost entirely inconsequential/harmless manifestation.
Noisenoisenoisenoisenoisenoisenoisenoisenoisenoisenoisenoisenoisenoisenoisenoisenoisenoisenoisenoisenoisenoisenoisenoisenoise
Posted Wed Mar 14, 2007 1:41 am GMT by supafrey
| efram wrote: | | How else does a sudo phychoanalyst... |
I literally laughed at this for like a solid minute.
But I cry foul on one small part of your assessment, though, japke. We both know I don't get defensive/insulted.
Posted Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:36 am GMT by efram
alls well that ends well
| Quote: | | as it's pretty entertaining in this almost entirely inconsequential/harmless manifestation. |
I have to agree with you snoogs.
as much as supa is a flamebaiter, I have to admit I enjoyed the re-flame as much as I'm sometimes irritated by the flame. Maybe I'll switch to the dark side and see what its like to add the straws rather then break by them. See if I can get a rise out of the risers.
Hmmm, the old turn the tables trick.
Can't beat em join em.
Don't knock it til ya tried it.
supa, I'm glad I can provide something for your amusement. After I read your quote of myself I realized I've been working too much. sudo is a linux command for those that don't know it, as opposed to the correct spelling pseudo, couple that with my typo phycoanalist, wow, I'm funny.
We all know its spelled shcykoanolysp
anyhoo, its been fun gents. The straws are on the floor, supa, feel free to begin piling them back on and we'll do this again sometime. We're clearly getting a laugh out of it, for whatever reason, which makes it not so wasteful of time.
In my opinion.
The Human Torch wrote:
Posted Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:51 am GMT by exit music
Blah blah blah, the content of this argument is 100% redundant. 100% too many threads are ruined by idiotic debates about Supa's comments.
When supafrey posts you must:
think about what he means
learn something
don't quote it or bitch
...
profit
Posted Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:12 am GMT by jimmer
i had two boiled eggs for breakfast
Posted Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:20 am GMT by efram
I had fun and its all about me. Who cares what you think Exit.
(arrogance and irritation)
woot
Posted Wed Mar 14, 2007 5:23 am GMT by wEbMaStEr
| supafrey wrote: | You're right, I'm sorry, I was completely in the wrong.
What does narcissistic mean? |
from dictionary.com:-
nar·cis·sism –noun
1. inordinate fascination with oneself; excessive self-love; vanity.
2. Psychoanalysis. erotic gratification derived from admiration of one's own physical or mental attributes, being a normal condition at the infantile level of personality development.
from thesaurus.com:-
Synonyms: egotistic, egotistical, self-centered, self-loving, stuck-up*, vain, vainglorious
Posted Wed Mar 14, 2007 7:58 am GMT by supafrey
| wEbMaStEr wrote: | | supafrey wrote: | You're right, I'm sorry, I was completely in the wrong.
What does narcissistic mean? |
from dictionary.com:-
nar·cis·sism –noun
1. inordinate fascination with oneself; excessive self-love; vanity.
2. Psychoanalysis. erotic gratification derived from admiration of one's own physical or mental attributes, being a normal condition at the infantile level of personality development.
from thesaurus.com:-
Synonyms: egotistic, egotistical, self-centered, self-loving, stuck-up*, vain, vainglorious |
You used the word out of context - or atleast phrased it wrong to the point of being a horrible word choice, that's all.
I'm not one to nitpick about grammar but these are, like, words people.
And you guys think maybe I wouldn't have an ego if somehow every thread didn't turn into you guys talking about me?
Posted Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:17 am GMT by wEbMaStEr
| supafrey wrote: |
And you guys think maybe I wouldn't have an ego if somehow every thread didn't turn into you guys talking about me? |
Mike Matusow - "How did I get sucked into this?"
Bart Simpson - "I didn't do it"
"It was like that when I got here"
Bill Watterson - “It's not denial. I'm just selective about the reality I accept.”
Posted Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:20 am GMT by shorn7
| Quote: | | And you guys think maybe I wouldn't have an ego if somehow every thread didn't turn into you guys talking about me? |
Classic and true....
Posted Wed Mar 14, 2007 1:58 pm GMT by vyni
| supafrey wrote: | | there's no such thing as settling out of court for a "disclosed sum". that's not how settlements work... |
Anyone who has followed the gold/wsop story knows well what webby spoke of: that both parties agreed in the settlement not to disclose any terms of the settlement. They're intentionally keeping it hush hush. This is what webby meant, and no, it is not a global settlement term.
Did Crispin get half of the net? We'll never know. They say that the first time they were able to sit down together and just talk, it was settled. Do you really think it was a casual conversation, after the injunction and all the bad publicity and gossip that stemmed from it? I doubt that very much.
Of course people are going to talk about it. It was the biggest wsop prize ever won, and I highly doubt we'll see another like it anytime in the near future.
Posted Wed Mar 14, 2007 2:00 pm GMT by vyni
lmao it wasn't until I posted above that I realized there was an entire second page going on here. Quick read shows it's another supa-and-such drama, so I'll go ahead and assume there's nothing worth reading in it. My post was of original topic.
Posted Wed Mar 14, 2007 2:27 pm GMT by MrDarling
Vyni , posting on topic is soooo 1990's.
You're so lame.
Posted Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:58 pm GMT by MasterMike
So, i guess we have agreed that Gold is a prick?? or at least was a prick?
Posted Wed Mar 14, 2007 5:08 pm GMT by wEbMaStEr
I dunno... the whole wsop/aftermath thing was a bit sour, but who among us could stand up to the kind of close scrutiny and attention that would be heaped upon our every move after a ridiculous win like that?
He was panned, for his play, for his coffeehousing, for the courtcase, for his play aftewards, for being a TV producer, for wearing glasses? lol pretty much everything.
It's quite good that he's come out and said what he has and I spose only time will tell really?
I doubt he'll fade away into the background tho?
Posted Wed Mar 14, 2007 5:19 pm GMT by supafrey
| Quote: | | Anyone who has followed the gold/wsop story knows well what webby spoke of: that both parties agreed in the settlement not to disclose any terms of the settlement. They're intentionally keeping it hush hush. This is what webby meant, and no, it is not a global settlement term. |
Urgggg this pains me just because that one little line that I posted was EXACTLY contrary to this and comes from atleast and SOME sense of reality, then I get attacked for contributing that one "meaningless" line (first by people telling me I misread something, then by people assuming I couldn't be right) and then you go ahead and post the exact opposite of what I said.
There was NOTHING "hush hush" about this settlement. This IS, for all intents and purposes, a GLOBAL settlement term. In North America (and most common law systems, for obvious reasons) all legal cases get very specifically recorded to be used as precedent for upcoming trials. The purposes of a settlement, in legal terms, is to avoid the hardship, time, money, and YES, even the RECORDING that a tort case requires.
Excluding some bizarro cases where public image is NECESSARY and thus non-disclosure agreements are PURPOSEFULLY left out (an example includes a mining company that messed up in the states and killed a couple families, so the wife of one of the workers DEMANDED a public account of how much money she got in her settlement along with a "full telling of the story" so people wouldn't look at her badly + understand the negligence the company did, etc) 99%+ of tort settlements are FORBIDDEN BY LAW to talk about the specifics of their deal. Punishments can include massive fines, forfeiting settlements and even contempt of court. This case was for millions of dollars... if you think either party would want the details of the money settlement revealed publicly you are being entirely too naive. The "assumption" I got accused of when I tried to correct webby over these EXACT ideas got so easily brushed aside as my stupidity and then Vyni comes in and DOES THE EXACT SAME THING.
You ppl are a joke sometimes.
Posted Wed Mar 14, 2007 5:40 pm GMT by wEbMaStEr
Actually, you were attacked for claiming that my use of quotation marks were "shady" rather than because I was quoting.
Further attacks were merely because you were being... well... you.
Good job turning the focus of the thread back to you again tho! A full 3 posts not about you must have been a real blow to your ego.
Oh, by the way, try googling "out of court settlement" You will find at least 3 cases where the settlement was disclosed on the first page of results alone. About the same in "undisclosed" and other just generally defining the term.
But of course, you know best. we are just a joke.
Posted Wed Mar 14, 2007 5:50 pm GMT by vyni
Think for a moment about the amount of publicity the entire incident has received. You would be a fool to believe for even a moment that the subject of disclosure wasn't brought up in that settlement meeting: the entire poker world was sitting by waiting to see what was to become of the largest purse in poker history...
I don't give a damn about the everyday settlement: this had way too much attention. To compare this to an everyday civil dispute.... are you kidding me? Publicity was a huge issue here, and a decision was definitely made not to disclose (hush hush).
And no, it is not a global settlement term in civil cases. I've been through 2 of them myself, and I and the parties involved are more than free to discuss them.
Supa, I know you like to talk a lot to feel good about yourself: it wasn't until I realized it that I started ignoring you, but omfg man. lol
| Quote: | | You ppl are a joke sometimes. |
Imagine if you will for a moment that you're the bartender.
One of your regular patrons continuously goes on and on complaining and slandering the establishment. Yet he keeps coming back over and over, even after repeated declarations that he'll never return... have a picture of that sad little man in your head? That's what you are here supa. I didn't intend to take a shot here, but holy hell man.
Posted Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:21 pm GMT by efram
vyni wrote:
| Quote: | | Supa, I know you like to talk a lot to feel good about yourself |
glad to know I'm not the only sudo phycoanalist in the bunch.
Posted Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:37 pm GMT by Geno
| efram wrote: | vyni wrote:
| Quote: | | Supa, I know you like to talk a lot to feel good about yourself |
glad to know I'm not the only sudo phycoanalist in the bunch. |
Please, please tell me that last line of spelling mistakes is irony? It's so hard to tell and I so want it to be but I fear it's not 
For me, Jamie Gold is not a very likeable guy unlike Greg Raymer and Joe Hachem who seem like genuinely nice guys. Chris Moneymaker and Jamie Gold both seem like the sorta guys you wouldn't want to go drinking with and as winners of the WSOP ME they are instant 'poker ambassadors' (how I hate that phrase) which means if they are not likeable, they will get jumped on quickly.
Posted Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:48 pm GMT by supafrey
| Quote: | Think for a moment about the amount of publicity the entire incident has received. You would be a fool to believe for even a moment that the subject of disclosure wasn't brought up in that settlement meeting: the entire poker world was sitting by waiting to see what was to become of the largest purse in poker history...
I don't give a damn about the everyday settlement: this had way too much attention. To compare this to an everyday civil dispute.... are you kidding me? Publicity was a huge issue here, and a decision was definitely made not to disclose (hush hush). |
This is laughable.
If you were involved in a case for >6 million dollars you wouldn't give two flying shits about what the poker community thought about your personal finances. This is an "everyday settlement" (whatever that means) REGARDLESS of attention from tens of thousands of kids, degenerates and pseudo-poker pundit intellectuals alike. The "attention" drawn towards the case is completely and totally irrelevant to the two parties involved in it. Jamie's future poker-based ideas will pale in comparison to the millions and millions of dollars that this case revolved around. When the stakes are this high I assure you that Jamie Gold's reputation, business ideas and HSP career are irrelevant in the face of losing millions of dollars in cash and complicating the scenario by allowing it to be scrutinized by the general public/legal community.
There was absolutely 0 chance that a case of this nature would ever be disclosed. None.
____
I love the "google" investigating that Webby did, though. I'm actually laughing at the absurdity of that point, but that's a digression.
And nothing about what I typed "brought the conversation back to me".. Or is anything I say equate to me "talking about myself"? Any opinion I have?
Did you really forget the entirety of what Snoggins just said like... 5 posts after he typed it? Me typing "lol you're completely wrong again" does not = "omg I'm so hawt"... you're the one mentioning things about me, not myself.
Posted Wed Mar 14, 2007 7:00 pm GMT by efram
Geno, reed the secund paje of this thred and all we'll bee reveeeled 
edyt: reed my last post on paje too for the kwiker eksplanayshun
I should have speeled it pchykoanlisp
It might have been more clear.
Posted Wed Mar 14, 2007 7:34 pm GMT by wEbMaStEr
Hey-ho, I used google as a sample, your absolute definition does not hold up there. I doubt it would hold up anywhere, but frankly if you want in depth research done...DIY
A new concept for you I know, research a topic before you hold your opinion up as fact.
And umm...you typing that your opinion is absolutely right and others opinions are absolutely wrong kinda does bring it all back around to you again, maybe if your attitude wasn't so holier than thou, if your manner wasn't so demeaning to others, maybe then it wouldn't, but it does.
Posted Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:12 pm GMT by supafrey
Person A: The world is flat.
Person B: The world is round. You are a moron.
Person B is talking about themselves?
I really, really, really need to research when "tolerance" equated to "every opinion has merit". Knowing you are right in the face of ignorance and sticking to your convictions is neither arrogance nor ignorance nor bigotry. In the words of Lewis Black, there are, in fact, fact facts. Not your facts and my facts, but fact facts.
Posted Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:21 pm GMT by snoogins47
| supafrey wrote: | | I really, really, really need to research when "tolerance" equated to "every opinion has merit". Knowing you are right in the face of ignorance and sticking to your convictions is neither arrogance nor ignorance nor bigotry. In the words of Lewis Black, there are, in fact, fact facts. Not your facts and my facts, but fact facts. |
Yeah I've kinda been wondering that myself. I just sorta end up passing it off as some weird effect of notions of 'tolerance' and 'political correctness' in the minds of the ignorant.
Nobody really believes all opinions are created equal, and that's barely even worth arguing, since your simple, 'beat them over the head with a blunt object' example of the Flat-Earth does it perfectly.
This is, in a nutshell, why I want to bang my head against a wall and cry at the same time whenever somebody says "The notion that the world was created 20,000 years ago is ridiculous," and a group of Fundie-Christfolk responds by throwing words like "Prejudice" and "Bigotry" around.
| Quote: | | lmao it wasn't until I posted above that I realized there was an entire second page going on here. Quick read shows it's another supa-and-such drama, so I'll go ahead and assume there's nothing worth reading in it. |
| Quote: | | Supa, I know you like to talk a lot to feel good about yourself: it wasn't until I realized it that I started ignoring you, but omfg man. lol |
Now I know that I risk being classified as a Supa-Apologist and brushed off as another unsubstantive anti-establishment instigator (and if so, I'll be ready to fire right back with some Vyni-Jugend jokes of my own)... but this sort of attitude is kinda stupid regardless of who you are, but the fact that it's from a mod/admin is, well, a bit worrying.
And yes, I'll anticipate the obvious response, that Webby is a mod as well, and that you didn't perform do any Mod-Admin stuff like banning or locking the post. But for all the blustering back and forth, at least Webby makes some effort to like, read the posts, and respond. It's this sorta stuff that makes everybody, even those that hate Supa, wonder how much of his schtick is just an effort to bring all this kinda crap to the forefront.
Posted Wed Mar 14, 2007 10:26 pm GMT by efram
| Quote: | | even those that hate Supa |
strong word there snoogles.
My part in this is not to espouse a doctrine of hate toward supa, but to possibly cause him to look at his approach from a different perspective other than his own. I don't get the feeling anyone hates anyone on this forum.
I think there are people who have distaste for supa's arrogance and his inability to quell this personality trait for the sake of humility.
What ever his intention is in coming at other forum members with an attitude of superiority, whether it be merely for the purpose of inciting caustic replies, thats his baby and he owns it entirely, along with the reaction it brings.
If someone incites for the purpose of inciting, as you implied earlier, then he has achieved his goal and doesn't need you to stick up for him. He's basically asking for it right?
If he's inciting because he's arrogant and thinks he knows beyond anyone else and can't contain that part of himself enough to avoid inciting, well, thats kinda sad in my opinion.
What causes a person to become arrogant to the point of inciting other's to lash out with sudo phycoanalysisis?
Is it all just a ploy to get attention?
Is it really the way he is? ( I love talking about him as if he weren't present)
Is it just a forum personality that provides humor based on reaction?
I just don't get it.
I've read alotlotlot of posts on here and there seems to be only a select few that have an attitude of "I know more than anyone else about everything." *ahem*
arrogance
offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride.
narcissism
A psychological condition characterized by self-preoccupation, lack of empathy, and unconscious deficits in self-esteem.
egocentric
Preoccupied with one's own concerns.
Posted Wed Mar 14, 2007 11:33 pm GMT by cdjos
| Quote: | | perhaps I'm weird, but I have always had a soft spot for flamebaiters/trolls, and to a lesser extent, assholes |
While we're at it, I miss Yeltzen....
Posted Thu Mar 15, 2007 3:50 am GMT by wEbMaStEr
Person A: The world is flat.
Person B: The world is round. You are a moron.
Person C:: The world is doughnut shaped! That is a FACT, you are both morons and I find your opinions laughable! It's doughnut shaped I tells ya! lalalalalalalala Clowns!
Person C: meanwhile is making it about him.
Posted Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:35 am GMT by tame_deuces
I think Jamie Gold seems like an ok guy. He's abit a weird on television, but from what I've seen he comes of as nice enough, so I never really got all the hate. He certainly doesn't conduct himself in any way worse than most more well-known faces we get to see on the screen.
Posted Thu Mar 15, 2007 3:37 pm GMT by mortaleclipse
| Quote: |
You ppl are a joke sometimes. |
I think this is the best part of this whole thread
Just a question, is it you belive their opinion on the matter might be wrong that they are a joke?
|
|
