Re: Buy in short to protect your bankroll!
[ QUOTE ]
I can't figure out the point of your posts. You seem to be simulataneously saying that the thread wasn't worth starting in the first place because it's a tired subject, while at the same time offering an opposing view. Hence, it's a topic worthy of discussion.
[/ QUOTE ]
But none of my arguments are really novel either. I'm just too lazy to dig them out. Plus I'd like one last crack at expressing my POV so I can paste the text into the February '07 short-stack thread, and the March '07 short-stack thread, and the April '07 short-stack thread....
Really, this was talked to death way way before November '06. I'm frustrated with myself, because I should have some easily-accessible boilerplate that says everything I've said so far in this thread, but I'm not that well-organized.
To say an argument is "beneath" someone means that it's not up to that person's typical high standards. That's hardly an ad hominem attack. That said, after having read Pokey's last reply I retract my statement that this thread is beneath him, because we're having a much more enlightening conversation here than the other times this topic has come up.
But I'm really less bothered by Pokey's OP than by the community's propensity to adopt certain views into the established consensus without sufficiently questioning them.
|