[MrMore]

I don't mind being used as an example, but it is silly to do so when you have no idea what you're talking about. So, if you're going to do so again, please make sure you do so accurately.

BTW, your mistake is the word "had", instead of --chose-- to. Also, following it up with a suggestion that if I had not won in 2004 I would have ripped off my backers and spent money that should have gone towards my daughter is extremely offensive, and completely untrue.

So please don't make [censored] up to try and make your point.

Thanks, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I suggested you would have ripped off your investors, nor, from what I know of you, do I think you would have. There wouldn't have been anything to rip off, over time. You would have simply said, as almost all tourney horses end up saying, to their investors, "Sorry, I lost." Your children wouldn't have suffered anything worse than your absence, I'm sure. But, please, don't tell us you've had such a sheltered poker life that you're unaware of the degeneracy shown even by some of the better players, much less the worse?

And if you want to say "chose to" instead of "had to," go ahead. I don't borrow money or hustle up investors. But if I ever have to, I'm sure I'll also say I'm "choosing" to. It sounds so much better. I'll probably also get very defensive if anyone suggests that I didn't "choose" to seek investors, I "had" to.

You'll have fanboys who'll come on here now and say, essentially, "But he won the big one! So, like, he can't be wrong." And they'll really think your title means something. And you'll let them. And so, in fact, will I, now, because everyone capable of understanding why winning a tournament doesn't mean much of anything already understands why winning a tournament doesn't mean much of anything, and everyone who doesn't, at this point, won't get it upon one more re-explaining.

I organized my first post poorly, if it came across that I thought of you as a Johnny. You, in fact, are neither a Johnny nor a Larry. You're a Joe. An average Joe. You, and Moneymaker and Hachem and Gold and Yang, all average Joe poker players who won a poker lottery full of thousands of average Joe poker players. There's nothing wrong with that. It's not even an insult, unless you're such an egotist that you believe you were anything other than lucky.

And if we could set up the test (we can't) I'd be willing to bet none of you would be winners after a year of 40/80 limit or 10/20 NL at the Commerce. I'd be very happy to make that bet.

I wouldn't make that bet against a Johnny like DN, or a Larry such as myself. Only against a Joe.