I've now read every single post in that thread, and I can only speak for myself.

Of course I respect those people who brought poker into the right direction and where it is today, Benny Binion for example.

But I think you made the snowball grew tremendously once it rolled down the hill, don't you?

"Pointless insults"? Anyone posting on internet threads should be prepared for insults. They didn't bother me. They just gave me more opportunity.

You're a doctoral student and you expected tea and crumpets in a thread that was initiated about alleged illegal activity by Bobby Baldwin and the Aria poker room?

I think that it is much more likely that you are showing favoritism to some friend who contacted you to complain that the kids were getting their clock cleaned.

Point out to me a significant violation of the rules of the road that I made.

That is most likely because I am the most knowledgeable poster on the thread about the issues.

As you were neither infracted nor otherwise punished, I'm not sure why you think I think you made a significant violation of the rules.

Nor does the fact that you weren't infracted/punished ultimately have that much bearing on why the thread was closed.

Yes, I'm well known for just shutting down a thread as soon as a friend of mine complains. You know me so damn well. I hang my head in shame.

I'm sure you'll have plenty of further opportunities to rail against all the kiddos you appear to loathe.

Your comment about "on all sides" clearly includes me, since I was the principal poster on one side of the issue.

Your last paragraph above about the kiddos reveals your bias against the position that I took defending Bobby Baldwin and the Aria.

But as I pointed out in my defense of Bobby and the Aria, the "Golden Rule" trumps everything. In this case, you happen to be exercising it.

You appear to be disturbingly emotionally invested in that thread. As a self proclaimed old guy, I'd think you'd be used to the things you love going away.

And whatever your personal opinion of what the internet should look like, the rules of NVG expressly forbid trolling and basically starting and/or participating in flame wars and posts that exist solely to insult other users. I wasn't around when it started, so rather than going back and trying to stop something that had already started and gone on for several days, instead I opted to end it.

I'm sorry that seems to have upset you so much.

And with that I'll let you have the last word, as it appears to me that you're perfectly aware why the thread was closed and simply want to vent your displeasure.

Dear Dr. Phil:

Thank you so much for the prescient evaluation of my "disturbing" psychosis. I will be forever grateful for your help.

I intend to seek therapy immediately. Can I get a reference from you?

Yo dude, forget about it. SGT RJ has graciously given you the last word. It's time to move on.

texasroadgambler,

Much like you continue to mention how the young guns have a sense of entitlement; you seem to think that your sharp tongue and wealth of knowledge affords you the opportunity to turn NVG into your own personal blog/shooting range. Keep up the condescending bull**** and I'll personally enjoy retiring your jersey with the likes of good ol' Johnny Hughes.

Sincerely,
Under 30

Jamie Platinum,

You threatening me about anything related to poker is about like a calf threatening the bull.

I did not threaten anyone or use any profanity as you have done here. So, it appears that you are the one who has broken the rules of 2+2.

Your sign off, "Under 30" reveals your bias.

Now, make good on your threat or apologize.

literally lol'd

later legend

mods, please change title of the geshkenbein-thread to reflect on what really happened.

I hope you have a suggestion, because I'm not following that thread so I don't know what really happened.

Any title change request/suggestions need to include a replacement title

Let me see if I can come up with an abbreviated version of "geshkenbein sells WSOP package that includes ME, degens it all away and is broke before ME; re-sells his ME action; finishes 62nd and doesn't even pay back people who'd originally bought his action."

"Vladimir Geshkenbein finishes 62nd in ME and scams his backers" might work. Or maybe "Vladimir Geshkenbein scams his backers then doesn't pay them back when he finishes 62nd in ME."

He certainly didn't say he would flip, look at his cards, and then fold, or play his button HU and then sit out, so there was nothing resembling grimming.

^this, ty.

How the **** is a thread that compiles the biggest poker scandals ever not worthy of a thread?

There are hundreds of poker scandals over the years, whether SGT RJ wants to see them compiled into a thread is irrelevant, I'm sure lots of people do, and it certainly fits into NVG.

How is it any different from any of the hundreds "what's your favourite poker ..." "what's the best poker..." threads? Apparently posting a thread asking people to post their opinion of the biggest scandal somehow makes me lazy?

Also, asking for cliffs so it makes the compilation of scandals easy to view (the entire reason for the thread is that scandals are all over the place with hundreds of pages) means that I'm being lazy and want people to do the work for me?

That is easily the dumbest, most illogical modding I've seen in awhile. Sgt RJ has obviously had a bad day, so she needs to prove her powerful internet dominance over people.

Sgt RJ is a really good mod imo

You know what, I don't really disagree with that, but this particular instance is just ridiculous.

1) There are plenty of other threads that have discussed the major scandals in poker.

2) You asked a basic question which has a basic answer (name some poker scandals for me). That doesn't need an entirely new thread. The entire purpose of the LC thread is to contain questions that have basic answers.

3) NVG is not Google. Google is Google. Google "biggest poker scandals".

4) Well that's just, like, your opinion, man. This really has been a fairly pleasant day for me.

Have you ever head the expression "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar"? I'm not adverse to changing my mind in spots like this, and have done so before, but basically calling me names probably isn't going to endear me to your causes, such as it is.

1) I actually made that thread because when searching 'scandals' on this forum, every thread had hundreds of pages and it's impossible to understand each scandal without spending an hour per thread. Therefore I thought it would be a good idea to put the jist of them in a compilation thread, like I say, as people have done for other topics.

2) How is that a basic question? How does post the cliffs of the biggest scandals have a basic answer? Well 'what's your favourite wsop moment' didn't need a new thread, people could just look up best wsop moments, but the thread was very popular.

3) Yeah I know, that's why it was a good idea to make a single thread with all the scandals, so people didn't need to use 2+2 like Google and search through hundreds of threads. Also, see answer 1.

4) I wouldn't have approached this so abruptly if you had just deleted the thread without the rudeness, in fact I went to the low-content thread guessing it had been merged to ask why... It's when I saw your incredibly rude reply that I decided i'd be rude back.

If you're not that fussed either way, why is your default to just delete a thread? Instead of wait and see how the users perceive the thread...

I didn't delete the thread. I merged the thread into a more appropriate place. If the thread had been deleted, you'd no longer see it. Where as right now you can see it, with a redirect to the thread it was merged into.

And if what you describe in #1 was your intent, you expressed that poorly, as I addressed in the LC thread. You didn't say, hey, scandal threads are long and complicated, how about we create a thread where there's a link to the major scandal threads but also a really brief synopsis so they are all in one place? What you said was, I want to read some scandal threads, but only ones with cliff notes. So yeah find them for me. kthxbai.

If anyone wants to do work compiling a scandal thread they are more than welcome to do so.

The point of the post is that nobody is going to spend hours compiling a scandal thread, but an individual user may post the cliffs of one scandal, then someone else will, and before you know it - you have an interesting thread.

Like I say in the other thread, the title was the point of the post, as titles should be... The post inside was just me personalising the post and putting my reasoning for wanting scandal cliffs.. Pretty standard writing style really - title is to the point, post is just a filler.

I'm curious how often you take the rudeness down a notch when you reply. It seems like pretty much every exchange like this you get involved in sees the nastiness increase with every post.

Anyway, you might find this thread provides a good start for you:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/16...andals-638056/

And I'd be happy to add to it.