Quote:
Originally Posted by barryg1
I never shy away when my personality or actions are criticized. Even if the criticism comes from someone whom I don’t respect, I still think it is worth evaluating. Just like we improve our poker games by first deciding if we made a mistake and then figuring out what we should do differently in the future, I think we can improve our personalities by similar analysis.
When you are with friends and you say something positive about yourself, you assume that they know who you are and realize that you are not always bringing up things to try to elevate your status. In the poker community, I assume I am around friends when I speak. I assume that they have heard me talk about poker and they especially know, for instance, when I discuss poker hands I usually talk about mistakes I have made, rather than my successes.
Most poker players who listen to me know that because I am part of the old guard, I have stories to tell that give a perspective that they don’t have. If some of the people whom I mention reported that my stories weren’t true, then I would lose credibility.
I am a part of a group of people, poker players, who play by rules and place a high value on honor. It is an incorrect guess that I might be like a politician who lost credibility when the people doing the real work diminished his involvement.
I think the problem here is clear from your criticism of me calling Phil Ivey and Patrick Antonius donkeys. If you really thought I was serious, then it is hard to consider you to be objective, because you are not on the proper wavelength to interpret what I am talking about. You are coming from an antagonistic position and looking to nitpick at things I say. I hope my friends understood me better.
Barry
Come on Barry "shy away"? Neither of us are 17 year olds I had an opinion of your broadcast and I stated it. I suspect from your defensiveness that I am correct in my assessment, You are correct and it is obvious that I do not know you just as you do not know me. My assessment of your interview was taken from the words you spoke, the inflection you gave them, an understanding of the language and of course no historical knowledge of the personal relationships involved.
I do not know if your intent was to imply you do not respect me - we do not know each other so other than the civility and respect I give any other human being - I extend to all unless I ascertain they do not deserve it. What I know of you is that you are an established poker player and from what I know of that I have some respect. What I spoke about is how I read what you said and that gives measure to how or if I respect you as a man.
How someone who clearly has status in the poker community would make an observation of diminution of that status from my comment is at best.... weird. Not withstanding your (I would say inaccurate) interpretation of my Guliani analogy - which was meant to demonstrate someone who has accomplished something typically does not find it necessary to say it over and over and over again then add negative remarks of others to further increase his importance by comparison E.G. real heroes are not short of others saying who will say it and usually shrink from saying it themselves. I did not mean that having told a lie that status was lost. Having accomplished something, and the truth of that accomplishment not being the subject of the conversation, does not diminish the accomplishment itself. Having said that, being an adult, I accept your criticism of my criticism of what I consider fair observations of you - having seen you speak places other than on this broadcast. I understand that I am is missing what you have now given as background. Certainly friends speak from a history and language often misunderstood by those who have not shared that experience. I hope you are not saying that you are unable to speak of friends and past experiences in a manner that conveys the history, friendship and uniqueness without also conveying what I spoke about. I am 45 and while I certainly do not know everything, I have heard many stories, poker and otherwise and can reliably ascertain the tone and content after listening.
I will say this, you know nothing of me, at least less than I of you even after this dialog. Being of the "old guard" does not give you the permission to make derisive comments of others - you are not the only "old guard" poker player with stories to tell or who has an important, unique perspective of poker. I accept that you may not agree with me but you seem to be missing a point every good story teller knows - how you tell the story is as important, some would say more important than the story itself. Your argument goes to your disagreement with my thoughts of your interview - needless to say I am at least as entitled to my opinion of how you conducted your side of the interview as you are entitled to say it as you like. Part of posting s to make a point, find out information, say something get feedback and so on. Not knowing you, having had that opinion after listening to you elsewhere, perhaps I wondered about the characteristics I finally wrote about. If you feel it's alright to come across this way that's your decision to make. I've listened and read a lot of "old guard" poker players of comparable status and to be sure there is a lot of personality in this dialog - not much bragging, putting others down.
I want to be clear here because in one passage you completely changed the intent and meaning of what I wrote - I did not call you a liar, I was not talking about your "credibility" as to the truthfulness or your stories, it would be silly to argue that I know you better than your friends I do not, I am not nitpicking at a word or two you said, I have no way (as really no one does) to determine you intent or "seriousness" therefore I am not able to make the determination of whether
you are serious or not and that is simply not logically a part of
my objectivity. You will not find your argument within my statements. My comment had to do with what I said in the first post - that a lot of your comments seemed to be trying to take credit for every little thing and I thought it unnecessary and beneath someone of your stature - this is not mysterious or invented. I replayed the interview with several people who all (some greater some lesser) had a similar feeling. If you will not or cannot take a fair, simple criticism without characterizing it as something I did not say and did not mean then you are correct "we are not not the same wavelength". I can accept, though I do not agree with you characterization, of my post. I however can see that there may be something there for disagreement - that you cannot tells me something about you.
I'll close by saying that "In the poker world", as you say, there are many storytellers - just like any other "world". Each good storyteller decides not the facts of the story but how the story is told or written - particularly when they themselves say or write it. A story worthy of being told and a storyteller worthy of telling it are simply not above criticism. As a marketing professional I know the good ones make good decisions about what to do with observations by those who consume their product.
In the "poker story" business the range goes from Doyle Brunson to Phil Hellmuth and many, many others. Each person chooses how they tell their story and how they told it remembered.
Jon(Merlin333)
OK Barry, I'll close by saying, I'm a writer and a reread of this answer can clearly be taken as somewhat harsh - I really don't mean to be and surely don't want to start a "fight". I hope we can just agree to disagree. Without doubt you're one of the greatest poker players and what you do with your winnings is exemplary. I listened to the pokercast because I wanted to hear what you had to say. After I listened I had an opinion and wrote it - you can consider what I wrote or not but my intent was not to be nasty.
Much continued success
Last edited by Merlin333; 08-12-2008 at 02:19 AM.