Absolute Soulreading/Rigged thread #3

[GaryTheGoat]

[ QUOTE ]
But hey, the truth is always a defense, right?!>!

[/ QUOTE ]

ABSOLUTE Defense accroding to Wikipedia lol

[ QUOTE ]
Defenses to claims of defamation include:

Truth is an absolute defense in the United States as well as in Canada.

[/ QUOTE ]

gg

[dragonystic]

can someone please post the PT stats of doubldrags chipdumping session?

[egj]

Adanthar, if I PM you my e-mail address, can you send me these hand histories? I would be interested in computing various other statistics on the data. Or do I need to contact ikestoys and/or others?

[caught_clean]

[ QUOTE ]
how often does suspect call a bet when he cannot possibly win the hand. E.g. the suspect put money in the pot when he could not win x out of y times (z%).

exactly one time (the Q2 hand where he calls an all in from what he thinks is 7 high and misses the backdoor flush)

[/ QUOTE ]


-
My thoughts on this is if we agree that he can see the opponents hole cards, people assume he actually can see their hands face up, graphics and all, but more realistically if you consider he is using some kind of 3rd party, self made perhaps hack, is probably only seeing 7c,8c in text on some side panel which is much easier to overlook hitting a backdoor flush instead of having the graphics of 2 large 7 and 8 of clubs cards in front of his face like some people presume.

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]

This is not legal advice either: I am indeed saying that it is "riskier" to allege that a poker pro, involved in a poker site from which presumably he makes money, is cheating people at poker at the very poker site with which he is affiliated. It is "riskier" to make that allegation than to allege that some completely unknown person with no public persona and no affiliations with a poker site whatsoever is cheating people at online poker. DUCY? (Haha - I've been waiting to use that one!)

But hey, the truth is always a defense, right?!>!

[/ QUOTE ]

Before they tell us to take it outside, you're forgetting that, at least in the American system (Britain's libel laws are far more plaintiff friendly) the burdens are very different as far as the knowledge of the untruth of the statement depending on the "public figure" status of the subject. Generally, merely negligent accusations against a private figure are actionable,* whereas you have to be "recklessly indifferent" to the truth of a statement with respect to a public figure. (For the non-lawyers, 'reckless indifference' is a term of art which imposes a pretty high burden of proof.)

Now to the extent that you mean it is riskier in that a public figure is likely to be able to demonstrate greater damages if libel is found, I agree with you.


*with some exceptions: e.g an honestly held, though false, belief is not actionable when it is communicated in the form of a reference check, for example.

[Dids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Somebody should get at Gary Wise, who writes for ESPN, or other ESPN/ABC/Disney contacts. I'm sure ESPN might want to know that one of the sites buying major add time for their WSOP broadcasts is currently involved in this mess.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm WTF? How is absolute involved in this mess? As far as I know they were maliciously hacked and their business is in shambles and they are trying to resolve the situation...I dont understand why we should be notifying entities that have business relationships with absolute.

I'm probably wrong here, just looking for your point of view.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol.

That's what AP would like us to think.

At the very least, AP's support is outright lying to their customers about this being investigated and resolved.

At the very worst they're directly complict in this cheating.

Somewhere in the middle they're still basically ducking the issue, not communicating, and have a massive flaw somewhere in their system. If I were ESPN/ABC/Disney, I would find their response to this enough that I'd never want to be associated with them again.

[Dids]

I think being functionally dishonest about what PT does is a really bad idea.

[Dids]

[ QUOTE ]
Has someone spoken to Sklansky about this? He's obviously got the technical ability to grasp the persuasiveness of the evidence, and the reputation and name recognition to be capable of getting attention paid to this by the media.

[/ QUOTE ]

You probably couldn't pick a worse spokesperson imo.

[Victor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Has someone spoken to Sklansky about this? He's obviously got the technical ability to grasp the persuasiveness of the evidence, and the reputation and name recognition to be capable of getting attention paid to this by the media.

[/ QUOTE ]

You probably couldn't pick a worse spokesperson imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

ds doesnt need to be a spokesman but you cant deny that he has very good ability to express somewhat complicated, technical aspects in a clear and concise manner.

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Has someone spoken to Sklansky about this? He's obviously got the technical ability to grasp the persuasiveness of the evidence, and the reputation and name recognition to be capable of getting attention paid to this by the media.

[/ QUOTE ]

You probably couldn't pick a worse spokesperson imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

ds doesnt need to be a spokesman but you cant deny that he has very good ability to express somewhat complicated, technical aspects in a clear and concise manner.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol?