--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:
If your intent is to be constructive it would be of great benefit
if you would name the 3 casinos which you deem reasonable safe. (If
you have done so previously, then forgive the oversight on my part.)
I have already stated:
Palms
GVR
Fiesta Henderson (NOT Rancho)
You might also raise a red flag about those casinos for which you
the greatest concern.
To do so would simply invite more flaming from you or anyone else
who has an emotional attachment to the casino(s) I name. I kind of
doubt that anyone would stop playing at those casinos anyway, which
they shouldn't, if their results are decent.
Well, I'm gratified that you think this is an exception to my usual
style. My use of the word "sorry" was a bit of a short cut. It
would have been more accurate for me to say, "I regret that I feel
compelled to be rudely blunt". You're absolutely right; no apology
was intended.
At least you regret your compulsions. The next step is to learn not
to give in to them. Rudeness is self-indulgent and unnecesssary.
That said, I've reconsidered the appropriateness of my post for
myself earlier today.
I think it should be clear from prior comments that I valued your
initial contributions since you've joined this forum, Rock. But I
personally find the continuing strains of "The Machines Are Gaffed"
tiresome and in poor taste.
As long as we're restating things, I should reiterate that my point
of view actually is, "I strongly suspect that some of the VP
machines currently on casino floors are not random, and to change
the programs of VP machines to cause non-random results is much
easier, and far harder to detect, than most people think; therefore
the possibility of such tampering cannot be discounted and should be
at least considered when evaluating a long series of sub-par results
at a given casino." The tactic you use is as old as the hills, and
called "Reductio ad absurdum" (I reduce (it) to absurdity). By
oversimplfying someone's arguments you make them sound foolish. It's
like reducing the arguments of someone against our involvement in
Iraq to the statement, "War is bad."
I also feel that the issue is central to everything we say and do
here, as we all must make the ingoing assumption that we are being
given a fair game, or everything else we do is moot: we can blather
all we want about penalty cards and EV and ROR, but if we are
battling an American-Coin-like situation, we might as well all go
play roulette.
Now, I'll fully admit, in most cases if I object to someone else's
posts I should just turn my back and ignore them. However, given
the extent of negative feedback this particular thread has generated
I can't help but put myself in your shoes. Were I the object of
considerable dispute from others who are at least reasonably
knowledgable (and I find your detractors to be that at minimum),
I'd be inclined to withdraw (back under my personal rock, if you
will) and contemplate what I might be overlooking that other's
apparently see.
I feel just the reverse: that I am seeing that which most people
overlook. And negative feedback never has dissuaded me; in fact, in
my opinion, the likelihood of a given viewpoint on a controversial
subject being "correct" is INVERSELY proportional to the number of
people who hold that viewpoint. Not so long ago, only one person in
the world believed that the earth revolved around the sun, and he
was almost burned at the stake for expressing that belief.
It's my habit to seek out a middle ground on which all parties can
come to at least modest agreement (and usually find it).
At minimum, if the discussion arrived at a dead end (as this one
has),I'd be satisfied early on that I'd made my point and wouldn't
continue to belabor the same argument over and over (no matter the
replies from others). There's certainly no further ground to cover.
This wouldn't appear to be the case with you.
Kind of disingenuous to spend 2000 words to say that the argument is
closed and there's nothing left to say, isn't it?
Now, while I won't assert that the following definitely
characterizes you, I can't help but to have suspicions that it may.
Whereas I would be disconcerted in your shoes, there are some who
wouldn't be uncomfortable at all. In fact, they'd welcome any and
all disagreement -- the louder the better -- since it evidences that
they're sufficiently important and influential to get a rise out of
others.
If it was my primary--or tangential--goal to get a rise out of
others, I could certainly do it in much more effecient and egregious
fashion than I have so far.
But you know what? Anyone who objects to such a situation and yet
still engages in the discussion is as culpable and likely more so.
So, guess where that puts me?
Truth is that while I have enjoyed other posts, I have filtered out
your contributions since you actively engaged in this most recent
"machine fixing" discussion. But, I've continued to read all
posts by others whose contributions I do value and unwittingly got
caught back up into something you stated that, admittedly, got
a "rise" out of me.
I'll be a lot more disciplined hereon out. Don't look for me to
comment again on this thread. I'll simply hope that others who
disagree with you on this subject will decide to let you have your
say and leave it at that.
I greet the above news with relief. I have been and continue to be
puzzled at your somewhat blind faith in the goodness and integrity
of the casino industry. But to reiterate, your set of experiences
differs (radically) from mine. It's not surprising that our
viewpoints diverge.
Given that I consider the issue of casino cheating to be absolutely
central to what this board is all about, I will to continue to post
on this subject from time to time as I see fit. Only Tom Sim's
objections, not yours, would make me cease to do so. I'm sorry if
you don't like this subject or my posts thereon, but you know what?
A lot of people on this board post on subjects that I don't like,
and I don't reply or e-mail them about how sick I am of hearing them
talk about the subject in question.
