[pernicus53]

[ QUOTE ]

Good point about the born human traits that are more attractive than others to most of the public in the dating game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that wasn't my point. Obviously, the point I was making was that while a lot of people define luck as having to do with something that happens TO you, it can also be defined as having to do with larger sets of circumstances, things many overlook. If you have too narrow a definition of luck, you'd be missing out on a lot of avenues for analysis of it. The dating scenario WAS AN EXAMPLE. Sometimes people use examples when making points.


[ QUOTE ]

We could go on and on about the form in which luck affects EVERYONES lives on a daily basis, and that was one of the points of my original thesis.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. You didn't make that point at all. Your original post said, "As I spoke with Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson about on Saturday, our goal through the GPSTS should be to help people realize how much luck is involved in every single day of their lives, through work, relationships, family, etc."
You can't see the difference between "we can all go on and on" and "we should help people realize how much"?
You apparently aren't interested in "thoughts/discussion" at all, but only a regurgitation of your own pro-poker propaganda.