Sorry you're having a bad week. Someday you'll understand that taking it out on others or kicking people when they're down isn't really going to make you feel better.

Actually, I was going to use that argument to support my opinion! You're right that your vote won't matter (I don't vote). Where we disagree is that I know that people DON'T feel the same way I do, and I don't have nearly enough influence to change that, and so democracy still stands erect. I'm not responsible for what other people think or do.

zomgzomg internet tough guy. But something tells me venice won't respond to your flame post with that. ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, livedonkaments. But yeah, you are really cool and great at poker, just keep crushing those idiot whales in live games for your money my man.

oh, please don't compare online high stakes LHE (my game) to old nits playing 30/60 live stud (not my game and not remotely relevant)

I was in a very bad mood when I started posting, sorry, but I'm not trying to troll.

You wrote, "One of those very insightful offerings is "you have to be good at life to be good at poker." I don't think it's insightful at all, and cited evidence to the contrary that nobody happened to answer. Actually, I think that quote is simply ridiculous (because of what I've said earlier and ALSO because it's silly to think that everybody agrees on what it takes to be "good at life".)

And don't you see why thatpokergirls's post is asinine? This person does not know me at all and is trying to solve my psychological makeup based on like 3 posts.

Thanks to your post to me in the other thread.

My post was not intended to be directed at a single person, but rather a general statement about what my opinion was of people who say "who cares?"

(The 'your' in the last phrase was meant as a general 'you' rather than you, a specific person.)

Had a post but it's not worth it. So I'll just say pop-psychology is dumb.

CAisiah -

idk if its been said yet, but you should just disable chat.

its dumb anyways, and can lead to tilt on occasion.

if you have time to goof around in the chat box you should just add an extra table anyways.

honestly, its probably some doofy teenager that said that crap. by letting it get under your skin, you are letting him win! this is the same loser kid that will post saying megan fox is too ugly for him because she has pointy elbows.

internet kids are desensitized and ppl will say just about anything online. i guess the world is just full of a-holes in general, but that's life.

Bb is right. "Disabling chat" live with good headphones also works and probably tilts the f*ck out of the guy who's trying to annoy everyone.

He's only half right...Megan Fox's elbows are quite nice...people have problems with her donotwant toethumb

few more quick thoughts:

1) lol idk how i got linked to this thread in the first place, i didnt know this forum existed

2) have you all seen how much crap annette obrestad takes? i have seen many many awful personal attacks on her on these very forums - stuff that makes the cancer comment seem almost pedestrian tbh. it's really shame, but this is how it is. i'm just pointing this out to say that if girls find success in poker, they should EXPECT to take way more crap than they deserve. this is not moral or just imo, but lets just be honest about how it is.

3) megan fox's thumb is fine by me, it's her silly tattoos that i find off putting

Yes, and I feel bad for her. I think it is very sad that a woman poker player is viewed (largely in NVG) as having done something really wrong and worthy of being-picked on if she isn't a perfect 10, but poker dudes are pretty much allowed to be gross without criticism. I really respect Annette_15's game, and I bet that a lot of the haters would actually kill to go out with her.

This is what I know: it's okay to have an opinion but not express it. Let's say I believe your post is asinine. Unless I'm in a bad mood of my own, I'm not going to say that. In fact, if I had my way, I'd invoke a NO AD HOM - PERIOD in this forum, just so there's one place on 2p2 that is enforced.

No one makes a point by calling anyone else "Stupidhead!"

I don't think anyone here is asinine, except the guy who was, well, not too bright and made an ass of himself, He's gone.

Possibly, your idea that psyching you out on the basis of a few posts is impossible, is based on a faulty assessment of how transparent people are when writing. Or, maybe the analysis was really bad. More than likely, imo, you were on life-tilt because of your loss and for some reason decided to take out your anger and grief on a bunch of women.

Is poppsych all BS? I dunno. I think it's what we used to call "conventional wisdom" It's what guys do on fishing trips and women do at the laundromat, because we all need to check in with one another and get confronted because no one is above assdom, ever. I'm 61, I know whereof I speak about that assdom thing.

Whatever the facts or truth are of these matters, might I just suggest that you try, as a kind of personal experiment, just in this forum, not criticizing anyone, and instead, just expressing your own viewpoint? And I'll try to be less verbose and think I'm everyone's grandma and no one can possibly go another moment without my sage advice. (I have a feeling you'd succeed better than I will....)

Be well

I dont agree with the way DrElo acts, but just lol at this "logic"

whether or not you vote has an extremely negligible effect on how many other people would vote, and you have no reason to believe such a small amount of people are going to vote to make your vote significant, as such voting because "if everyone felt the same way as i and decided not to vote democracy would fail" is just ridiculous.

I don't really see how you can even begin to think this makes sense, unless you somehow believe you are an influential enough person that whether or not you vote is gonna change the minds of a significant amount of people?

Basically she is saying...

Democracy works when people vote.
Democracy doesn't work when people don't vote.

You following me so far? I don't mean to be condescending, but I just want to make sure cuz this is a key point. (Now, one could argue whether the success of democracy relies on voting but that is another day another topic.)

Got it? Good.

There are people who don't think their vote counts, therefore they do not vote. If all people thought this way, no one would vote and democracy wouldn't work.

There are people who do think their vote counts, therefore they do vote. If all people thought this way, then everyone would vote and democracy would work.

There are also people who don't think their vote counts, but vote anyway because they want democracy to work. So if all the people from the first group ('don't think it counts, don't vote') instead thought like this group ('don't think it counts, but votes anway') then democracy would work.

It has nothing to do with her influence on other people.

How'd we get on this anyway?

being sarcastic isn't very effective when you're dead wrong.

i was saying the only way what she said possibly made sense was that she was influential, i wasn't saying she was claiming to be. If you disagree with this you either have to read what she posted again or learn how to use logic

To make it clear she said:

-my vote will never matter in presidential elections
-i vote
-because if everyone thought this way noone would vote and democracy would fail.

Now unless you voting or not voting influences other people, your vote, as she claimed herself, doesn't matter

cliffs: saying "i do x, because if eveyone wouldn't do x things would go wrong" is illogical unless you have a good reason to believe whether or not you do x would influence a significant amount of people to (don't) do x

I think what they are trying to say is...

One single vote will never make a difference in an election. So if everyone thinks 'my one vote doesn't matter, so i'm not bothering', then democracy fails.

If all those people do all vote however, that group combined, might make a big enough difference to actually change the outcome of the election.

So, even if one vote might not matter, many small ones make one big one...

I know all this but it's not relevant to the point i'm trying to argue

This is incorrect.

1847 – ONE VOTE elected Whig candidate George G. Dunn over Democratic candidate David M. Dobson for the U.S. House of Representatives in Indiana.

1955 – ONE VOTE elected the mayor of Huron, Ohio.

1977 – ONE VOTE determined in a recount, decided that Robert Emond won the seat for Vermont State Representative over Sydney Nixon.

1984 – ONE VOTE elected a Monroe County, Florida commissioner.

You can say it is rare, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible.

Ohh, okay, i did not know that. I do have to admit i'm not as interested in US politics. I'm trying to follow the Belgian ones, and that could almost be considered a full time job atm.

But it actually proves the point even more, that every vote is important.
Next time i'll try to get my facts straight tho, before i try to sounds smart.


Anyway, as asked before, how did we ever get to this anyway?

I get the feeling that you are being intentionally obtuse. If it isn’t intentional, I apologize.
Read my post again. I don’t make a claim that any one poker player has a significant amount of influence over poker players as a whole (I actually say outright: “Drelo, the mentality that you can act like a jerk and it won’t impact poker is true”). I used a voting analogy so he could understand the points that other people were making in the thread. These points do not involve the entire poker world crashing down because DrElo is nasty in the chatbox (which has some awesome deep-seated psychological implications, but that is for another thread), and my point did not involve democracy failing if I, as an individual, decide not to vote. Their points and mine encompass the idea that there is a responsibility (that many of us recognize and that DrElo does not) for each of us to act individually in a way that we want the community to act as a whole. This feeling of responsibility stems from the recognition that if everyone acted a certain way, an undesirable outcome would occur.

I guess it’s easier to take it out of the voting context, and completely remove the idea of influence, etc. Try this one to understand what I mean:
One grain of sand does not make a hill, and does not influence other grains of sand to create a hill. But that grain of sand does contribute to the hill. Without it, and others like it, a hill cannot exist. I choose not to be a grain of sand in the hill.

Also, Hundrye, telling someone who is trying to interpret something that I said that she is “dead wrong” just doesn’t make sense. Maybe what she said was exactly what I was trying to express. Maybe what you said is dead wrong. I think what you say is interesting, and I kind of enjoy these discussions, but not when people are rude to each other.

who cares about this election nitpicking?

this thread is about the treatment of women at the tables, not about whether or not every specific point of someone's random election analogy was accurate

this thread got derailed

<3 well put.

very, very reasonable post.

I know that "This feeling of responsibility stems from the recognition that if everyone acted a certain way, an undesirable outcome would occur" is a strong factor in a lot of people.

I thought when you said "My vote will never matter in presidential elections, but I vote bc if everyone felt the same way and decided not to vote, democracy would fail." you were trying to use this as an argument for why you should vote(and why to be nice to people), rather then explaining the thought process behind the people who were "berating" (can't find a better word atm) DrElo for his actions. But i was simply attacking the logic of that statement, if you only used it to make DrElo see peoples reasonings then your post is obv valid, but that still doesn't make my post moot.

I'm not sure if you are, despite knowing this is how most people think, agreeing with me that the type of thinking leading up to that quote is irrational, but that was basically my point.

As far as being rude, look at her post, she is being incredibly sarcastic, basically without any understanding of my points. If you read my post again, my post is in no way an attack on you, and it's not trying to interpret what you said in any way. So i'm not sure how it's relevant whether or not she or i interpreted your post right. My post was simply arguing the irrationality of the statement "My vote will never matter in presidential elections, but I vote bc if everyone felt the same way and decided not to vote, democracy would fail."

I agree that the thread has been derailed and i thank you for responding in such a manner, feel free to not respond if that only would cause the thread to be cluttered up more.

Personally, I think TTHRIC.