Quote:
Originally Posted by arcdog
Good grief buddy - when people type in chat that they want a villain to die in a grease fire they don’t literally mean it - are you that dense? You don’t seem to understand what things like metaphor and hyperbole are and so perhaps you should stay off the internet.
Checking your posts it seems as if you’ve actually started a thread defending Sheldon Adelson before so you’ve picked a strange, fat disgusting arse to kiss - have at it.
You’ve also posted “I’m against online gambling” and so you clearly are an idiot.
I don’t want you to die but I wish you weren’t full of stupid opinions. That should be taken literally.
People post all sorts of nasty stuff on the internet. Stuff about shooting up schools or places of worship or public concerts, for example. I suppose all that sort of stuff is hyperbole too.
Anyhow the stuff about online gambling i discussed was from a couple years back. And if you read the threads, I think you would have gathered my primary concern was over the issue of government regulation of the internet. I am obviously not at all opposed to gambling. But those who think that online gaming is “the same thing” as B&M gaming, do not understand gaming or internet technology.
And lastly, once again about Adelson, I don’t believe I have ever defended him personally. I only defended his right to live his life and run his business however he likes within the law. And anybody who doesn’t like the way he lives his life or runs his business is certainly free to not buy products from him. But the notion of a boycott of the V poker operation on account of Adelson is just idiocy on a number of fronts.
A) Adelson couldn’t care less about the success or failure of the poker room. If it fails, he’ll just build some new mega club and probably make a lot more money. Therefore a boycott would not injure him at all and could even line his pockets with more money. However, failure of the poker room would cost lots of everyday working people their jobs, including many who likely share some poker players’ views about online poker and/or gaming in general.
B) When you start looking into the personal lives and business dealings of higher-ups in companies, you are likely to find reprehensible stuff wherever you look. Just look at the recent Wynn settlement with the NGC. Should people boycott the Wynn poker room because of the behavior of Wynn and certain member of upper management (some of whom remain with the company)? Or how about CAESARS, which entered into a pretty sketchy bankruptcy proceeding a few years ago and was sued for attempting to defraud certain bond holders. I think they eventually settled for like 5 billion dollars, but I’m pretty sure anyone who cared about the issues involved in that case could have found some pretty objectionable activities on the part of the heads of CET. Should they have boycotted the WSOP as a result?
So, the point is, boycotting some tiny part of a larger business because you disagree with the head of the business is not really a principled stance, but rather a form of hypocrisy and selective indignation. By all means, go ahead and boycott if it makes you feel better. But you’re cutting off your nose to spite your face by passing up a great product.
