It seems that several threads in the last few days have degenerated
a tad, well, more than a tad, to the point where the "dialogue" has
all the subtle dynamics of a fourth grade recess. Did not! Did too!
I'm surprised that my recent thread on internal workings of VP
machines attracted more rational discourse than juvenile flaming
(with, of course, exceptions, such as today's "RobCanoe" or whatever
who apparently has nothing better to do at 7 AM than say, "I don't
believe you. Nyahh nyahh.").
I actually suggest that if 1) You see something posted that excites
you to the point where YOU, from the vantage point of your Throne of
Knowledge, absolutely MUST correct the ignorant fool who dared to
post such drivel, you restrain yourself to the point where the
disagreeing pearls of wisdom that you DO post don't contain any
insults, characterizations, etc. There are actually very few idiots
whose initials aren't R.S. that post on this board, and they don't
deserve to be treated as such. Let's not do the Skip Hughes thing of
attacking controversial points of view the way a starving coyote
attacks a rabbit. 2) If insulted, flamed, attacked, etc. in response
to one of your posts, it would be understandable if you replied in
kind, but do it privately. Nobody wants to read a post that
essentially says, "You're an idiot. You're wrong. You're wrong.
You're wrong. Nyahhh." So not even replying to such a post may
ultimately be the best antidote.
I think we can all agree that Skip Hughes provides a marvelous
service to the gambling community and that his pages are chock full
of valuable, useful information. I also think we can all agree that
he is a caustic wiseass who insults people and doesn't have the guts
to admit it afterward, and that he squashes opinions that differ
from his with all the zealousness of the Thought Police. He has no
place on a board like this, but I personally have no objection to a
CONSTRUCTIVE post from him. Okay, let's not mention him again.
The ideal treatment of the respons(es) to an interesting but
nonetheless fundamentally flawed argument would be the recent thread
on the advisability and cost of pitching high pairs to go for
royals. The flaw in the original poster's thinking was quietly and
rationally explained to him in great detail. I don't know if anybody
actually restrained themselves from posting something calling him
a "fool" or a "sucker" or if the Thought Police were at lunch break,
but it was refreshing. And unusual, TOO unusual.
My concern about VP in general is that opportunities are drying up
at an alarming rate, much faster than they ever have before, and
that the casinos for the first time appear to be acting IN CONCERT
to deny VP players the opportunity to win. I may post on this or
other concerns in the future. My posts will be based on the fourteen
years of video poker experience and the local residency perspective
that I possess. So if you do take exception to anything I say,
please do so with the realization that I probably DO know what I'm
talking about, and with the civility that you would normally use
when talking to me face-to-face. That's all I ask.