When did I ever say it was OK

Conversations cannot be "strong". They can be terse, direct, vague and many other things, but they cannot be strong.

But you want everyone to think you took action, so you threw that word in there.

From AI:

Whether a conversation can be "strong" depends entirely on whether you are looking at it through the lens of grammatical precision or rhetorical impact.

The debate you're seeing on the Two Plus Two forum centers on whether "strong" is an appropriate descriptor for an interpersonal exchange, and there are two ways to look at it:

1. The Literal/Prescriptive View
Strictly speaking, "strong" is often considered an imprecise adjective for a conversation. Critics of the phrasing, like the user in the forum, argue that "strong" is a physical or intensity-based attribute that doesn't accurately describe the nature of a dialogue. They would suggest more specific alternatives:

Terse or Direct: Focuses on the brevity and lack of fluff.

Heated or Intense: Focuses on the emotional volume.

Substantive: Focuses on the importance of the topics discussed.

Candid: Focuses on the honesty and lack of filter.

2. The Colloquial and Idiomatic View
In modern English—especially in corporate, political, or "tough-talk" settings—"strong" is frequently used as a synonym for firm, unyielding, or serious.

"We had a strong talk": Usually implies that one party was being very firm, setting clear boundaries, or delivering a stern warning.

Rhetorical Weight: Using "strong" is a way to signal that the interaction was not casual or weak without having to disclose the specific (and perhaps private) details of what was said.

Contextual Usage
In the specific context of the Sklansky thread you are viewing, the dispute is about Mason Malmuth’s use of the word to describe his interaction with David Sklansky.

The critic in the thread is arguing that the word is being used as a "filler" to project authority or action where none might actually exist. It’s a common linguistic critique: when someone says they dealt with a situation "strongly," they are describing their intent or posture rather than the actual mechanics of the conversation.

Summary: While a conversation cannot be "strong" in the way a bridge or a muscle is, it can be "strong" in terms of its assertiveness. However, if you're writing formally, you're usually better off using a more descriptive word like pointed, rigorous, or stern.

nerd

True.

Forthright.

Chuck Palahniuk's Choke has a recurring bit-"(...) isn't the right word, but it's the first word that comes to mind."

Mason's usage of "strong" is an excellent (pluperfect) example (simile) of this.

Joe R. Lansdale's Savage Season* features a gunrunning couple named Soldier & Angel; Soldier continually stops mid-rant to ask Angel what word he's thinking of, cf
* Savage Season is the first novel in the Hap & Leonard series

Dennis Lehane's Moonlight Mile** has an extremely charming & exceedingly dangerous Mordovian hitman named Yefim, who's always eager to improve his English:


** Moonlight Mile is the final novel in the Kenzie & Gennaro series

Mason did incredible things that were good business and contributed to the poker community, with the publisher and these forums. His reputation is damaged by his association with Sklansky and his Sklansky's young girls and the Brandi scandal, etc. I don't think the expression is usually stir the pot is what causes it to stink, but I agree any discussion of this makes it worse for Mason. There is no way he can defend himself on this that will not make it worse.

I think the argument is whether 'strong' was the only way to describe their conversations.

Mason is probably looking for a thesaurus.

Thank you for this post, because it tells the 2+2 community that we can safely ignore anything else you say on any subject.

it's not a stretch to think that people can give strong indicators of emotion or revelation during a convo.

it's straight up stupid to nit pick this.

Oh the irony

Why was this this series not completed and published?

Surely the author had written Part 3 - where is it?

I don’t know what Brandon told Mat. I disagree with most of his views on what happened back then.

There were other emails between David, Brandi, and I besides the one that was posted. In one email during the same time period, David said that he estimated that Brandi had a 60% chance of committing suicide. He went on to say something to the effect that if I helped him push her over the edge, by specifically befriending her again only to dump her unceremoniously (his idea), that might be “worth a car”. David wanted her to kill herself.

Over the years, I’ve struggled with the guilt of not doing more. At the time, I was afraid. I’ve consulted with lawyers about coming forward with this information and was advised not to, that I could be sued and locked in a defamation and then anti-SLAPP lawsuit that I could not singularly afford on my own. So I waited.

But this happened. And I never really got over it. Maybe I will find some peace in finally telling it.

I’m sorry to do it this way, Mat.

Wow thats ****ing horrible.

Can you explain a bit more about who you are and what your role in this was?

Maybe it was public knowledge at the time but I have no idea.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...4&postcount=66
Coming from someone who sent this mail its hardly surprising anymore (and DJ it will likely tell you a bit more about the source and give some context of DS manipulating people)
But is remains so barbaric, cruel, inhumane, horrible, savage, atrocious...
But I like to speak very precise so I will call it a stupid email

Yes I am aware of that email and called out Mason for calling it merely stupid.

I just dont understand how Jennfox was invloved.

I was expecting way worse.

"Suicide wouldn't be a bad option either. If you do that I will promise to stop badmouthing you.

Notice that I am sending a copy of this email to Jenn. We have put her through a lot so the l least I could do was send her something that know will provide her some enjoyment."

Sad to hear this wasnt worse enough for you

ill take admonishment for asking "the question" everyone has wondered about.

what was the reason sklansky wanted the girl dead?

He had.disadvantages.

Threatening with acid, what an *******. For a couple of hundred bucks.

I want to address this a little more. Over the years, David did a bunch of stupid things, and in my opinion, these things not only hurt David in terms of royalties earned, and that number, again in my opinion, is substantial, but it also hurt our company.

To give an example, David always wanted to sell the publishing company so that he could get a chunk of money up front. What he had trouble understanding is even if I sold the publishing company, his contracts would go along with the sale and he wouldn't get anything up front unless he then made a deal with the new publisher/owner to give him a one time payment in exchange for his royalties.

As an example of this, in 2003 after the poker boom began, David had discussions with Lyle Berman, without my knowledge, about selling Two Plus Two Publishing LLC to him. He then told me about it and my reply to him was that under no circumstances would I sell the company.

Fifteen minutes later, David called me again and this time he had Lyle Berman on the phone with him. That conversation lasted less than 30 seconds and ended any chance we ever had of doing anything positive with Lyle at that time.

This is the type of stuff I had to deal with over and over again. So, when I use the word "stupid," it's quite accurate and applies to many things.

hahah oh wow. Lets talk about this now. I mean threatening to throw acid in somebody's face isn't very nice okay.

But this is the real douzy!

He tried to sell the company? Without your knowledge or consent?

Those two things are at least equal in severity.

Actually you are the real victim here!

He didn't equate them. He just gave additional examples of stupid/shady behavior that made no logical sense.

I called him out earlier for calling the email that was sent to Brandi stupid.

I don’t think this is an adequate term to describe it.

I still take offence to merely calling it stupid. It is stupid, but it is much more than that, and there are more accurate descriptors.

At best, this is entirely tone-deaf, but based on Mason’s past posts, his tendencies, which I struggle to describe as anything other than narcissistic, the last sentence of his post, what he chose to quote, and the context of his post, he very much does equate them.