Sklansky vs Negreanu!

[pokervintage]

David Sklansky did not mention names but Negreanu took it as a shot at him.

Sklansky(my take on what he said): Some high rollers (Negreanu is primary suspect), are losers. They do not have the slightest idea of what "Having the edge" means. They (Negreanu) should be ashamed of themselves for going to church on Sunday and not shoving 500K into the collection box when they are perfectly willing to lose said 500k to Doyle or some other golf hustler when they have nadda a chance-o-winning. I wonder if Doyle gives him strokes?

So basically Sklansky seems to be saying that Daniel, whom I like very much, is a loser and a religious flim flam man. Agreed?

Now Daniel, whom I like very much, comes up here and says that Sklansky, although not a loser at gambling, is basically a loser at life. I think this guy Strasser said just about the same thing in another thread. He, Strassa, called Sklansky a lame old guy and I've never seen David, whom I like a lot, limp. So I am assuming "Lame" refers to Sklansky's life style. Now Daniel claims that Sklansky hasn't bought a new pair of shoes in 25 years. I don't think Daniel has known Sklansky that long so I doubt that it is true. But I can say that I have known David, whom I like a lot, for about 8 years and well I have to say, "David, he might be pretty close about the shoes." Daniel also calls David a nit. I have heard this said about David by many others in the past. I'm wondering though why Daniel, whom I like very much, considers this, I assume by his tone, to be a negative thing? Below is, I believe, what is meant when referring to David Sklansky as a nit.

[ QUOTE ]
A term used among poker players describing a player who is generally tight with money, and unwilling to involve himself in situations which are not clearly to his advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that a negative thing? I don't think so.

So here we have the boys going at it again. I recall a few months ago when Daniel, whom I like a lot, challenged David, who I like a lot (can't get that who or whom thing straight), to a battle of Heads-up poker matches but this never came to fruition because Sklansky wanted an edge, (how dumb) and TV rights (I believe), but Daniel just wanted to play.

So what do we, who like Daniel a lot and whom also like David a lot, do about this situation?

I for one would like to see a debate with either Mike Caro, Abdul or Tom Weideman as the moderator. Or maybe a poker match. Of course, a fist fight might be a whle lot better and may attract more paying customers too. Something Sklansky might appreciate.

pokervintage