[OodaThunkett]

[ QUOTE ]
Because of your position, people are always going to confront your opinions in your posts.

I dont think saying they need theyre heads checked is a good argument, more like fustration they dont accept your words as gospel.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not as shocked as some of you are that he is resorting to this tactic. I'm older than most of you, and many people have learned things from me, so what I say goes, right?

And the fact is, many people, when losing an argument, will resort to calling the people they are arguing with names. (For their own good, obv.) It's not pretty, and it's not clever, but it's human nature.

Anybody who can start a post saying you need to get people in a position where it is in their best interests not to cheat you, but end it by saying you should ignore that they have cheated you because they probably won't do it again, and if you want to risk it, go for it, is not thinking straight, imo, though obviously I have enough intellectual integrity not to suggest that they have some mental condition if they do this.

Number of 2+2ers currently playing Absolute who will quit now David Sklansky has alerted them to the shock fact that Absolute might actually be a risky site to play: minimal.

Number of 2+2ers who will be encouraged to play Absolute with David Sklansky's 'go for it' ringing in their ears: probably not many more than the number who would have done it anyway.

Number of players who might have quit Absolute had we achieved more publicity: many. Enough to bring them down? Who knows, but enough to hurt them and discourage other sites from taking their course. And after all, apparently most people don't cheat only because it's in their interests not to. As it is, there is no discouragement whatsoever. Business as usual. How does this encourage the sites not to cheat us? It does not.