Was getting into a batkini v Smitalos war of words.
"Which, yer know, I love......." (but so do 'some' mods as it's a ready made 'potentially awkward thread' closure excuse)
"Well. I'm angry. And not because I'm in it, but because it degrades women, which I hate. And the culprit, whoever he is, is in this room. Or she, it could be a woman. Women are as filthy as men. Not naming any names - I don't know any - but women... are... dirty"
This is a poker chat room, KEY WORD = POKER! You have twisted this and blown it well out of proportion. I agree with what you are saying, I don't want it to come across the way you feel it is. If it does then apologies as stated in a prior post. I was merely looking at ways of getting more new players in, I saw that this is something other sites are doing but this is not and thought it was a good idea to put it out there. Again apologies for you taking it the wrong way but I am assuming you enjoy a good argument online hence your previous posts. Also this is not an equal rights topic. Posted by Batkin88
"Apologies for you taking it the wrong way" Excellent self-promoter.
"Also this is notan equal rights topic." Yes, it is. This is the problem.
Women only tourneys discriminate against those that arn't women. Your only retort that I've been able to make out, is the one regarding "encouraging new players to try poker", which I argued against in my post, and explained why that reason isn't valid. If you could debate some of the issues I brought up in my lengthy post regarding the ethical problems with XXX-only games, I'd greatly appreciate it. Nowhere in that post, or any subsequent one, have I personally attacked or insulted you.
If you want to get personally attached to your beliefs and opinions, be my guest. Personally, I try to favour a detachment from all emotion when debating. And, any flaw you see in my arguments, I welcome GREATLY, for that's how we improve as individuals. Just because I try to expose flaws in your arguments, does not mean that it has to get personal, or that it is an attack on you in any way whatsoever.
If you feel that my lengthy post made on page 2 is in any way a personal attack at you, then debating topics like this on the forum shouldn't be what you spend your free-time doing. I'm desperately trying to challenge your stance on why your favour the motion addressed in OP, and get to the root of your reasons as to why you believe it. Your passive-aggressive posts do nothing but alienate those begging for an informed discussion.
Instead of replying to the points I made, and why they are flawed or incorrect, you've taken it upon yourself to neglect all discussion with my altogether in favour of a "Who can reach the moral high-ground first", slanging match. One of which, I don't wish to partake in.
Take a breather, have a cuppa, and then come back and kick my huge (but still rather sexy) @ss on WHY I'm wrong, and WHY you're of the opinion you are.
Was getting into a batkini v Smitalos war of words. "Which, yer know, I love......." "Well. I'm angry. And not because I'm in it, but because it degrades women, which I hate. And the culprit, whoever he is, is in this room. Or she, it could be a woman. Women are as filthy as men. Not naming any names - I don't know any - but women... are... dirty" http://facedl.com/fvideo.php?f=onqoeqiieaxa&david-brent-hates-sexism Posted by DOHHHHHHH
Not at all matey. All I've tried to do itt is engage people in the discussion itt, and at the very least, play devils advocate as to why the idea suggested may not be all 'dandelions and butterflies'.
None of my posts were personal attacks at batkini, and I'd encourage people here to go back and try and find for themselves where this thread went 'awry'.
I'm trying to wage a war on what's considered 'normal', and challenge peoples' preconceptions, in a sea of posters who either whack in a few words, or a +1 on the topic.... OR those that think that any intellectual battle of ideals is somehow too hot for the forum to handle, jeering different unfamilar new ideas because it makes them feel uncomfortable, or as if it's a personal attack on them if someone tries to tweak their opinions, relieved when a mod comes in and closes the thread before any genuine discussion takes place.
You guys wanna talk about how cute the new royal baby is all **** day, be my guest. But to villianise someone promoting active discussion and debate between conflicting ideas, is absolutely outrageous.
Mr Smitalos You're forever jumping on threads which are not exclusively about poker. Now you want to discuss equal rights in "poker chat" Posted by Jac35
Thank you sir.
It makes me glad that my dedication to spreading reason and logic in this forum has been noted. tyvm
In Response to Re: New female tourneys : Not at all matey. All I've tried to do itt is engage people in the discussion itt, and at the very least, play devils advocate as to why the idea suggested may not be all 'dandelions and butterflies'. None of my posts were personal attacks at batkini, and I'd encourage people here to go back and try and find for themselves where this thread went 'awry'. I'm trying to wage a war on what's considered 'normal', and challenge peoples' preconceptions, in a sea of posters who either whack in a few words, or a +1 on the topic.... OR those that think that any intellectual battle of ideals is somehow too hot for the forum to handle, jeering different unfamilar new ideas because it makes them feel uncomfortable, or as if it's a personal attack on them if someone tries to tweak their opinions, relieved when a mod comes in and closes the thread before any genuine discussion takes place. You guys wanna talk about how cute the new royal baby is all **** day, be my guest. But to villianise someone promoting active discussion and debate between conflicting ideas, is absolutely outrageous. imo. Love you JJ. Posted by Smitalos
This is your first post, it was only when I asked you to expain your point did you start talking absolute waffle
In Response to Re: New female tourneys : And my name isn't really; Carl Smit Smitty Smitalol Fishcake Spewy **** Luckbox Arrogant snidey little sh1 t But for ease, I respond to all of the above. It's simpler that way :P Nicknames ftw Lamby Posted by Smitalos
lol, what is it??? I thought Carl was your name!!!!
This is why you need to keep the vlog going, to answer these kind of viewer questions!!!!!
In Response to Re: New female tourneys : lol, what is it??? I thought Carl was your name!!!! This is why you need to keep the vlog going, to answer these kind of viewer questions!!!!! Posted by DOHHHHHHH
In Response to Re: New female tourneys : This is your first post, it was only when I asked you to expain your point did you start talking absolute waffle "This is such a bad idea. js" Hypocrite springs to mind Posted by Batkin88
Sample size plz. Instead of debating the topic at hand, you've resorted to personal attacks, that are fwiw, pretty baseless. I could bet you that out of everyone in this forum, I'm in the top 3 when it comes to the 'Average length of posts'.
2 insults in the space of as many lines. You're only emphasising my point about you reacting on an emotional level.
Can we please discuss the topic at hand, or do we have to waste our time on ultimately pointless posts like this. We get it, you pointed out 1 post where I didn't post a 1000 word essay replying to OP. I would have hoped you wouldn't take my example so literally.
In Response to Re: New female tourneys : The point is to attract more customers, new players will be of a lower standard so it isn't a level playing field and some just want to play in a friendly comp. The same as free rolls but targeting a niche in a market. Posted by Batkin88
I agree there is a market for it where women would probably find it better live to play in women only games. Merely because of the somewhat horrible men that may sit around the table with their ego and aggro mouthy stuff that goes on.
But I do not agree the women are at a low skill level overall and to assume that is somewhat patronising.
Your sex does not mean your going to good or bad. Everyone starts at the same level.
If we are talking about "how do we get more women into the game" well I don't think the answer is to isolate them away from horrible men. Espcially online where you have no idea if the person is a man or women.
It just sounds like to me that your advocatin starting a tourny where only weak players can play each other. And if you a stroung player and a female then your going to clean up.
ask sky to set up an women invite only tourney to take place in say 4 weeks time with a low buyin. Ask sky if they could possibly send an email to all women who are signed up to the promo emails across all of sky products ie bingo/bet and see what sort of turn out you get.
In Response to Re: New female tourneys : I agree there is a market for it where women would probably find it better live to play in women only games. Merely because of the somewhat horrible men that may sit around the table with their ego and aggro mouthy stuff that goes on. But I do not agree the women are at a low skill level overall and to assume that is somewhat patronising. Your sex does not mean your going to good or bad. Everyone starts at the same level. If we are talking about "how do we get more women into the game" well I don't think the answer is to isolate them away from horrible men. Espcially online where you have no idea if the person is a man or women. It just sounds like to me that your advocatin starting a tourny where only weak players can play each other. And if you a stroung player and a female then your going to clean up. seems a bit self serving Posted by rancid
you've nailed all the points I was thinking when reading this thread
Comments
Was getting into a batkini v Smitalos war of words.
"Which, yer know, I love......." (but so do 'some' mods as it's a ready made 'potentially awkward thread' closure excuse)
"Well. I'm angry. And not because I'm in it, but because it degrades women, which I hate. And the culprit, whoever he is, is in this room. Or she, it could be a woman. Women are as filthy as men. Not naming any names - I don't know any - but women... are... dirty"
http://facedl.com/fvideo.php?f=onqoeqiieaxa&david-brent-hates-sexism
Ger
Excellent self-promoter.
"Also this is not an equal rights topic."
Yes, it is. This is the problem.
Women only tourneys discriminate against those that arn't women. Your only retort that I've been able to make out, is the one regarding "encouraging new players to try poker", which I argued against in my post, and explained why that reason isn't valid. If you could debate some of the issues I brought up in my lengthy post regarding the ethical problems with XXX-only games, I'd greatly appreciate it. Nowhere in that post, or any subsequent one, have I personally attacked or insulted you.
If you want to get personally attached to your beliefs and opinions, be my guest. Personally, I try to favour a detachment from all emotion when debating. And, any flaw you see in my arguments, I welcome GREATLY, for that's how we improve as individuals. Just because I try to expose flaws in your arguments, does not mean that it has to get personal, or that it is an attack on you in any way whatsoever.
If you feel that my lengthy post made on page 2 is in any way a personal attack at you, then debating topics like this on the forum shouldn't be what you spend your free-time doing. I'm desperately trying to challenge your stance on why your favour the motion addressed in OP, and get to the root of your reasons as to why you believe it. Your passive-aggressive posts do nothing but alienate those begging for an informed discussion.
Instead of replying to the points I made, and why they are flawed or incorrect, you've taken it upon yourself to neglect all discussion with my altogether in favour of a "Who can reach the moral high-ground first", slanging match. One of which, I don't wish to partake in.
Take a breather, have a cuppa, and then come back and kick my huge (but still rather sexy) @ss on WHY I'm wrong, and WHY you're of the opinion you are.
Who knows it might be a massive success.....
iv always liked a bit of girl on girl action
None of my posts were personal attacks at batkini, and I'd encourage people here to go back and try and find for themselves where this thread went 'awry'.
I'm trying to wage a war on what's considered 'normal', and challenge peoples' preconceptions, in a sea of posters who either whack in a few words, or a +1 on the topic....
OR those that think that any intellectual battle of ideals is somehow too hot for the forum to handle, jeering different unfamilar new ideas because it makes them feel uncomfortable, or as if it's a personal attack on them if someone tries to tweak their opinions, relieved when a mod comes in and closes the thread before any genuine discussion takes place.
You guys wanna talk about how cute the new royal baby is all **** day, be my guest. But to villianise someone promoting active discussion and debate between conflicting ideas, is absolutely outrageous.
imo.
Love you JJ.
It makes me glad that my dedication to spreading reason and logic in this forum has been noted. tyvm
"This is such a bad idea. js"
Hypocrite springs to mind
Carl
Smit
Smitty
Smitalol
Fishcake
Spewy ****
Luckbox
Arrogant snidey little sh1 t
But for ease, I respond to all of the above. It's simpler that way :P Nicknames ftw Lamby
This is why you need to keep the vlog going, to answer these kind of viewer questions!!!!!
Instead of debating the topic at hand, you've resorted to personal attacks, that are fwiw, pretty baseless.
I could bet you that out of everyone in this forum, I'm in the top 3 when it comes to the 'Average length of posts'.
2 insults in the space of as many lines. You're only emphasising my point about you reacting on an emotional level.
Can we please discuss the topic at hand, or do we have to waste our time on ultimately pointless posts like this. We get it, you pointed out 1 post where I didn't post a 1000 word essay replying to OP. I would have hoped you wouldn't take my example so literally.
I agree there is a market for it where women would probably find it better live to play in women only games. Merely because of the somewhat horrible men that may sit around the table with their ego and aggro mouthy stuff that goes on.
But I do not agree the women are at a low skill level overall and to assume that is somewhat patronising.
Your sex does not mean your going to good or bad. Everyone starts at the same level.
If we are talking about "how do we get more women into the game" well I don't think the answer is to isolate them away from horrible men. Espcially online where you have no idea if the person is a man or women.
It just sounds like to me that your advocatin starting a tourny where only weak players can play each other.
And if you a stroung player and a female then your going to clean up.
seems a bit self serving
ask sky to set up an women invite only tourney to take place in say 4 weeks time with a low buyin. Ask sky if they could possibly send an email to all women who are signed up to the promo emails across all of sky products ie bingo/bet and see what sort of turn out you get.