[jackaaron]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When you end up having to defend yourself to this many people, it's a good bet that you could have expressed yourself a little more clearly in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Frankly I think it's a better sign that a lot of people on this forum can't read/reason. His points were pretty straightfoward.

I don't really agree that Gold will be a bad thing for poker, but there's something to be said that somebody else might have been more optimal from a marketing persective.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sir, no one is questioning a debate on whether there are more "marketable" players than Gold. I personally think it would be difficult to know right now the impact he may have on poker.

The problem is the bigoted tone of the inital post. A simple, "Which player at the FT would have been better as a winner for the game than Gold, and why?" Or something of that nature. I think the difference is very clear between my question vs. that of the OP.