[vpFREE] Saving pennies - Bob Dancer's "Flow Chart" for Penalty Cards

[vpFREE3]

"rgmustain":

You asserted that "Dancer has taken the position in his
column and his recent posts that you MUST use penalty cards
to be considered successful" and the only documentation you
have provided states exactly the opposite of your assertion.

You said Dancer didn't mean what he said about others being
successful without using penalty cards, and now you're
apparently dismissing Dancer's reply to your assertion,
where he says that he considers Jean Scott, who plays at a
strong non-penalty-card level, to be successful video poker
player.

Instead you have chosen to divert, obfuscate and raise
issues that have nothing to do with backing up your Dancer
assertion.

I'm not going to play your game and get involved in your
rambling rationalizations, but I will give you a one time
answer to the questions you asked and the charges you've
made.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<<<< Wanna bet? >>>>

<<< Does this indicate you have inside knowledge through a
personal relationship with Bob Dancer? >>>

I don't have inside knowledge about Bob Dancer or a personal
relationship or any sort of special relationship with him.

<<< (If you're at that level and want to explain how you do
it, I'm sure that this forum would love to hear what you
have to say."). >>>

<<<< I don't claim to be at any particular level. >>>>

<<< ??? If you go back and reread my post you will this
that this was evidence for my last statement. It certainly
wasn't a question about your play. Clearly, this raises the
question of just how much you were trying to understand my
case vs. having a preconceived opinion/agenda. >>>

It appeared to me that the question was directed to me.

I definitely had a preconceived opinion/agenda about your
case, because your assertion didn't make sense to me.
Understanding your case wasn't important. This was all about
providing documentation for your Dancer assertion.

<<< Only if I see Dancer posting a remark like ... Using
penalty cards makes little difference in the success of any
VP player ... will I change my interpretation of his
statements. Do you really believe he would ever make such a
statement? >>>

<<<< I said in the post you're replying to: "I don't think
Dancer believes or has ever said what you asserted." >>>>

<<< You didn't answer the question. Do you believe he would
make such a statement? It's quite a simple question and gets to
the heart of the matter. >>>

I gave you a relevant answer twice.

Your statement and question are irrelevant and extremely
slanted. You were asked to provide documentation for your
Dancer assertion, not what it would take to change your
mind.

<<< Now, what I really wonder about ... why have YOU taken
such a personal role in defending him? >>>

I wasn't defending Dancer, and don't normally defend anyone.
In this instance, I was questioning what appeared to be an
irresponsible assertion by a vpFREE poster.

It really doesn't matter to me whether Dancer says that you
"MUST use penalty cards to be considered successful" or not.
But it does matter to me when I believe that someone is
misrepresenting someone's position, which I suspected that
you were doing when I read your Dancer assertion.

<<< You didn't take such a role when Dancer slandered Paymar
(within VPFree by stating that he still stood by the
statement in his column). Nor, did you do anything about
Dancers' comment about Jean Scott until others objected.
Nor, did you reject Dancers' post calling other players "not
bright". >>>

I try to ensure that all members are treated fairly, but I
don't normally defend anyone. You have limited knowledge of
what I may have done or not done in any/all of these
situations.

<<< You have also choosen to take actions, including
censorship, against anyone who chooses to disagree with
Dancer (or YOU). >>>

I have enforced the vpFREE Rules and Policies and will
continue to do so.

There isn't any censorship on vpFREE. Posts aren't censored
and anyone can post whatever they like, providing they do it
on the proper forum. If there were censorship, I might not
be reading your post now.

<<< You are now reviewing my posts on VPFree as well and I
have NEVER issued a single NPC on VPFree. >>>

Your posts are moderated on vpFREE, because of your past
behavior, to ensure that you don't post something on vpFREE
that belongs on FREEvpFREE.

<<< Once again the common thread is disagreement with
Dancer. >>>

The common thread is that personal attacks or negative
personal comment posts about anyone belong on FREEvpFREE
rather than vpFREE.

<<< I think it is time for you to come clean and admit
exactly what your relationship is to Bob Dancer. >>>

I don't have any special relationship with Bob Dancer. His
decision to participate on vpFREE has caused me a lot of
grief, but I believe that there is value for vpFREE in
having him as a member.

<<< Your choice to remain anonymous makes this even more
curious. >>>

If you say so.

Here are my previously stated reasons for choosing
anonymity:

"The Administrator Emeritus told me that he wished he had
administered anonymously from the start, and counseled me to
consider doing it anonymously. By so doing there is some
insulation from those who want special treatment and from
those who aren't happy with a particular post or with
overall policy. Personal security and casino retaliation
concerns are also lessened.

I took the job on an anonymous basis and I intend to remain
anonymous."

<<< From all indications it appears you and Dancer are
attempting to make VPFree your own personal playground. >>>

I can't speak for Bob Dancer but I'm trying to keep vpFREE
non-disruptive and fair by impartially enforcing our Rules
and Policies.

vpFREE Administrator

[rgmustain]

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, vpFREE Administrator
<vp_free@y...> wrote:

"rgmustain":

You asserted that "Dancer has taken the position in his
column and his recent posts that you MUST use penalty cards
to be considered successful" and the only documentation you
have provided states exactly the opposite of your assertion.

Let's try it again since you bypassed responding to the exact quotes
that would lead any non-prejudiced person to the same conclusion that
I came to. Let's try just one of them to keep it simple.

"But it's usually the people who AREN'T personally successful at this
game who claim my ways aren't necessary"

It appears you think this quote supports the position that Dancer
does not believe penalty cards usage is required to be successful.
How do you interpret this statement? Dancer states that it is the
people who "AREN'T personally successful" (see the word successful
with his emphasis are NOT) who claim his "ways" (penalty card usage)
isn't "necessary" (another way of saying they are a MUST). It doesn't
get any more obvious that this.

I will also add, once again, that I have no problem with Dancers'
position. He has provided reasonable evidence backing up that
position that may apply to some gamblers. I have a friend who really
needs to play VP as accurately as possible because otherwise it
causes him discomfort when his card choices don't happen to work out.
For him playing perfectly is a MUST. Of course, this doesn't apply to
everyone. Jw776655s' well thought out reply shows that penalty card
usage can also have negative effects on the return of the game. This
could have been a very good discussion on VPFree, a Video Poker
forum. Now, it appears the usage of wipes is considered more
important that actually discussing a topic that applies directly to
VP.

In addition, for some reason you decided to censor jw776655s'
response whose only crime was disagreeing with Bob Dancer. You've
also censored other posts including my response to this censorship
(claiming the thread had been moved to FVF when my response had
nothing to do with the thread ... only the actions you had taken).
Clearly, you don't want a discussion of your censorship to be made
public on VPFree.

You said Dancer didn't mean what he said about others being
successful without using penalty cards, and now you're
apparently dismissing Dancer's reply to your assertion,
where he says that he considers Jean Scott, who plays at a
strong non-penalty-card level, to be successful video poker
player.

Since he hasn't responded to this is print then I have no idea
whether that is his position or not. Of course, if he does, then that
raises another question about why he made all the remarks I quoted
while apparently not believing them.

Instead you have chosen to divert, obfuscate and raise
issues that have nothing to do with backing up your Dancer
assertion.

If quoting EXACTLY what Dancer has written is "to divert"
and "obfuscate" then I'd like to understand your definitions of these
terms. A more reasonable conclusion is you are attempting to defend
your position by ignoring overwhelming evidence.

It also raises the question, once more, as to why you even care. Even
if you disagree with my interpretation of Dancers' remarks, it still
is my INTERPRETATION. I think it's pretty clear from the above quote
alone that my intrepretation has merit.

I'm not going to play your game and get involved in your
rambling rationalizations, but I will give you a one time
answer to the questions you asked and the charges you've
made.

As for the rest of your denials ... Your actions speak far more than
your words. You can't expect to practice censorship and not have that
practice raise questions about your motives. Let's get back to your
censorship of jw776655s' post. You stated:

"I thought that a lot of ink was devoted to saying very little of
substance in jw776655's latest post"

Making it obvious that one of the reasons you rejected the post was
because YOU thought a post had little substance. If our posts must
agree with YOUR views or they will be removed then you are practicing
censorship. You went further by stating:

"it contains some questionable generalities and statements relating
to Bob Dancer, which aren't appropriate on vpFREE."

I thought those "generalities" were no more or less appropriate than
some of the "generalities" that Dancer has used in his posts. For
example, using "not too bright" to describe those that don't believe
that penalty cards are useful (like jw776655) could be considered
questionable by some. This could also be contrued to mean that
questionable generalities and statements relating to jw776655 (and
others), are appropriate on vpFREE.

Dick