Quote:
Originally Posted by washoe
Brynn Kenney, Doug polk , mike matusow they play 1-3 ?
They also weren't in the games.
Sorry but ure argument is off. It's all poker. If in my world/profession happens something this big. I say something.
And negreanu says 3 words?! He's cheating. That's all?
But yeah I can see how they can be attacked and how they want to see everything unfold without their opinion.
Appeal to authority is a weak argument already, and your reverse "Appeal to lack of authority" is far worse.
You keep going back to Phil Ivey, and I have no idea why - I can't remember him coming out with statements about...anything in poker. I'm not going to say he never has, but he certainly isn't the go-to for commentary on poker issues.
You asked about Negreanu, and when people showed you he had commented, you moved your criticism to the fact that he's "only said 3 words". Comments like that are why you're getting pushback; it smacks of disingenuous posting when you shift the goalposts like that.
Why haven't whatever high profile players you look up to commented? Who knows, there could be a variety of reasons. If you care, ask them. But coming in this thread and using the lack of comments from some people to argue against all the evidence in this thread is ridiculous. If you think the evidence isn't good, that's what you should be arguing against. If you can't, maybe you should avoid disparaging the case based on who hasn't commented on it.
I'm not going to go back and forth with you on this and try to convince you of anything. I don't know that I even should have replied, but I'm doing so on the chance you actually believed you were making a good faith argument, in the hopes you might see why using that as an argument is silly, and people reacting to it in the fashion they have has nothing to do with a "witch hunt".