re: the lenghty "John May" etal thread below...

is it possible that we can all pause for a moment, take a breath and toss this bullshit aside?

Flaming in cyberspace is easy, perhaps there is validity on both sides of the fence...I don't know the specific issues, nor do I care to become knowledgeable. I am a poster though and have been for some years, acidity proves nothing.

I have no dog in this fight, but can assure each and everyone, that life is a VERY, VERY short ride. Why not make the best of what we have and perhaps in the spirit of the Holiday Season on both sides of the pond let us move on to a more positive tone and put away the rocks.

I think it is healthy dialog to agree to disagree, but to continue to piss on one another is simply childish, proves nothing, and simply fuels an already agitated situation.

Hasn't this site suffered enough with the likes of The Syphon, Wogga, Cant, PUIU and Frank "the flaw" Stanton(thank God he's gone)? Do we really need to spend such time slicing each other up? Truth be known, and a cold Heineken between all of us, I'd bet almost to a man we're good, decent people...we just have different viewpoints...the potato, potatah thing (unless of course you're Dan Quayle).

This is really a waste of effort guys...let it go. Surely we are much more intelligent and able to resolve things (perhaps via private emails) to come to some common ground and find some peace. Gee, isn't this supposed to be about improving are skills and knowledge about blackjack, with some humor tossed in along the way?

Enough already!!

Regards,
Wildcard

about doing consulting for casinos? In non-blackjack environments, consulting for competitors is so common the term "Chinese Wall" has developed to describe the provisions required for a company to do so. It's a bit simpler when it's an individual; he just establishes a "Chinese Wall" in his head between the interests of the competitive clients. I do it frequently. It boils down to ethics. The person consulting for competitors is either ethical and trustworthy, or you don't want to have anything to do with him regardless of his associations.

It seems to me we've done ourselves a disservice by ostracizing people who may be valuable to us just because they've also consulted for casinos. The authors of Knock Out Blackjack are examples. They've probably done more for the non-pro counter community than most of the other people who are revered. Likewise Karel and his simulator. And I've learned a good deal from Zender's posts, and he's a flat-out casino manager.

We should take what we can get from whomever and judge what we get on the merits.

...CA, but I still think, however commonplace it has become (and indeed it has, with a herd of snouts in the trough), that casino consulting sucks. You should not sell information to card counters on the one hand and try and foil them on the other.

And I've learned a good deal from Zender's posts, and he's a flat-out casino manager.

True, however, Zender was an out-and-out casino guy from the start.
The issue is one of trust. If people hand over credit card details and personal information to an organization like RGE they must be sure that information cannot be accessed by casino personnel.

Btw Ken Fuchs, the co-author of KO blackjack, has never done consulting work, to his credit.

We're talking about two different scenarios.

1. Exposing oneself to casino agents by providing credit card and other information.

2. Drawing on information available from people who are willing to provide it at arm's length.

It wouldn't be very smart for a player to engage in the first scenario. I think it's equally not smart to ostracize someone in the second scenario just because he talks to both the Hatfields and the McCoys.

is it possible that we can all pause for a moment, take a breath and toss this bullshit aside?

Titaniuman has vouched for Viktor, which has good enough for me and, as I said in the original post though no one seemed to notice, I didn't really believe it anyway.

At the other end Parker has got rid of Viktor's personal attack on me, which is probably best for everyone, especially Viktor & RGE.

However, he didn't bust several other flames by Viktor below that (eg "We only publish credible authors"). He deleted my responses to those posts which were not profane, or even (by my standards anyway) especially nasty.

For the record my post stated that RGE's recent output was heavily influenced by my own work, for example my webpage being the original inspiration for Bill Haywood's "Beatwebcasinos.com". I also pointed out that criticizing my baccarat book was not compatible with selling Grosjean's "Beyond Counting" since that book came after mine and recommends exactly the same advantage play approaches at baccarat. I also pointed out that RGE used to stock my baccarat book and I could not understand how my book had suddenly lost credibility after a period in which I criticized several RGE members & associates for casino consulting work.
Reasonable points to make I thought.

They don't consider you credible there. Don't wear out your welcome here. I don't think you are ever going to get a public retraction after accusing Viktor of being an agent for Griffin, which was a pretty spurious thing to do on a public board. You are not the only one having a bone to pick with AP.com.

Let's talk about blackjack, okay?

Regards,

scobee

"For the record my post stated that RGE's recent output was heavily influenced by my own work, for example my webpage being the original inspiration for Bill Haywood's "Beatwebcasinos.com". "

I'm still waiting for the post where he claims Al Gore stole his idea of inventing the internet.

Do you really think Parker deleted that post of his own volition?

Parker is one of the good guys. I think he showed a lot of chutzphah in coming over here, testing the waters, and going back to AP.com to bust the owner....and his boss. Who else would have instigated that Viktor's post was out of line at AP.com? Do you think those guys listen to me or Maverick? I did have several e-mails back and forth with one of the masters, but I think that Parker acted out of personal integrity.

While I cannot defend John May's actions, I certainly will defend Parker to the limit.

I think it is time for the spitbusters to consider that things here are getting a little loose. Freedom of speech is a groovy thing, but there certainly are long-standing guidelines in place to allow busting posts that are slanderous, inflammatory, or just plain wrong on this site. Anyone know of even one post that has been deleted since 10/11?

MHO,

scobee

He is a good guy. He also has to deal with two loose cannons. Don has demonstrated over the years his immaturity when it comes to dialogue. Viktor has shown he has a lot to learn when it comes to professionalism. Leaders don't lose their cool when they're challenged or confronted. He obviously(to me, anyway) realizes this after the fact and, in this case, asked Parker to delete his post ostensibly because he violated the posting guidelines. At least he realized his mistake, something Don would never do.

In addition, Viktor loses credibility when he says John May's book is not a worthwhile blackjack book. Of course, I have a feeling he made his comments at the urging of Don. John May's book, has helped generate far greater profits for me than Blackjack Attack. There simply is no comparison. Don's book is worth the cover price, IMHO, but I could certainly do without it.

FWIW, I think John May could tone it down some and he may have even started some of these flame wars in the past. In this case, the attack on him was unprovoked, but he probably would have been better off not responding, as responding to idiotic statements gives them, at least, a little bit of credence that they wouldn't have had were they left to stand on their on.

I wish Parker well, but I don't envy the position he is in.

is his old site which is still on compuserve. I tried to post the link here but the html code was rejected, for some reason. So, the easiest way is go to Google.com, type in Green Baize Vampire, and choose the selection on the first page of google that comes up.

Maybe John knows an easier way to get there.

when they are challenged or confronted."

Case in point: Our man SW's cool and polite demeanor and replies to Don S.'s posts, who was continually attacking and baiting him about a year ago, when SW was espostulating his sportsbetting theories in preparation for his upcoming book. My respect for SW went up several notches during this exchange.

Neko

Al never said that. It is a distortion. Al said that while he was in congress he took initiative in creating the internet. Which he did. Papa Bush signed the bill Gore authored.

The link to Richard Wiggins' thorough examination of what Al Gore did say, and the historical time lines concerning the internet are clearly presented. Unless you can provide something to support your statement above "Which he did.", I would suggest Al Gore was gasping for straws during the Blitzer interview.

For those who read this and are so inclined to read some interesting Al Gore gaffes, I suggest looking at www.gargaro.com/algore.html

If you really want to see some mind-boggling statements from a former Vice President, search on Google for Dan Quayle quotes...there are probably several pages of them. Scary indeed to think he was a heartbeat away from being our President!

NO I'm not a Democrat or liberal basher. I would have posted this about any public official, Democrat, Libertarian, Republican or Independent.

Regards,
Wildcard

SW showed strength of character during that time. Don S. was relentless with his criticism and it would have been easy to respond in kind, but to do so would have exhibited a hidden weakness. One sure way to tell if someone has inner confidence is to watch how they react to criticism. If they seek revenge or become defensive it exposes a hidden weakness of their self-esteem.

First, I don�t think there is any person in the BJ community today that is working harder than Viktor to disseminate quality information. As the owner of an advantage player publishing house and sales outlet it is not just his right, but his duty to review publications. That is what he did. John May didn�t like it � so what did he do? He committed, in my mind, an unpardonable sin. He made a post indicating that Viktor was a Griffin agent and that Viktor was responsible for the shutdown of the bj21 free pages. I was shocked by this post. Clearly it was made in an effort to destroy Viktor�s reputation and RGE. After all, who would give their name and address to a Griffin agent? JM now says he didn�t believe it. Then why did he post it and why has he not apologized to the entire BJ community for passing on such a vile, non-credible accusation? Has a single person here considered the motivation of an �anonymous accusant,� assuming there ever was one? I asked JM for the anonymous e-mail and he responded that he had just deleted it. (What is this, Enron?) Where is the outrage at this act?

As for respect for Stanford, I am also shocked that he has not killed JM�s post. It is probably the worst, most irresponsible attack ever made on BJ21. But then it is to Stanford�s benefit to let this post remain. So, in the long tradition of BJ21, posts that tell lies about competitors of Stanford remain no matter how irresponsible and malicious and in violation of posting guidelines.

Now as to Parker�s action. Parker runs Parker�s Pages. He made the decision to bust Viktor�s response to JM�s vile accusations. Why people here think that they can peer into the mind�s of others and discern their thoughts and motivations is beyond me. This site has truly become the National Enquirer of BJ. Stanford�s statement that he does not allow personal attacks has become the joke of the field. Even his own site manager takes part in personal attacks. No wonder the reputable authors have all fled.

Don�t you people ever talk about Blackjack?

Merry Christmas

"First, I don�t think there is any person in the BJ community today that is working harder than Viktor to disseminate quality information. As the owner of an advantage player publishing house and sales outlet it is not just his right, but his duty to review publications. That is what he did."

Why did he allow the interview in the first place if he viewed John May as not credible?

"He made a post indicating that Viktor was a Griffin agent and that Viktor was responsible for the shutdown of the bj21 free pages. I was shocked by this post. Clearly it was made in an effort to destroy Viktor�s reputation and RGE."

Agreed. A bad error in judgement. Similar to some of John May's more stupendous claims relating to his gambling exploits, it doesn't do him any good to make this public claim, regardless of whether it's true or not. However, I'm sure John May would have never made this public query had Viktor not used bad judgement and lost his cool.

"As for respect for Stanford, I am also shocked that he has not killed JM�s post. It is probably the worst, most irresponsible attack ever made on BJ21. But then it is to Stanford�s benefit to let this post remain. So, in the long tradition of BJ21, posts that tell lies about competitors of Stanford remain no matter how irresponsible and malicious and in violation of posting guidelines."

Had Viktor come into his new endeavor with a friendly competitor attitude it probably would have been busted by now. By trying to show that RGE is superior to BJ21 I would imagine it stoked the competitive fires in BJ21 management. He made a costly strategic move by doing so. His error was in not realizing that advantage players are a tight-knit community and his approach was bound to step on a few toes that potentially could have been customers.

"Now as to Parker�s action. Parker runs Parker�s Pages. He made the decision to bust Viktor�s response to JM�s vile accusations. Why people here think that they can peer into the mind�s of others and discern their thoughts and motivations is beyond me."

You're certainly entitled to your opinion.

"Don�t you people ever talk about Blackjack?"

I prefer to spend most of my time related to blackjack playing. However, I understand there has to be time spent studying and asking questions and I feel that there is more than sufficient resources on this site to accomplish this. Don's Domain would be redundant for me. Apparently the panel consists of a few ill-tempered individuals that mistakenly think they hold the keys to the kingdom. Serious advantage players know differently. The one panel member who is a regular player doesn't even possess enough skill to keep from being detected by casino personnel and now has to expose himself with a lawsuit.

"Does this crap never end???"

See my post above about exposing hidden weaknesses.

The following is from my earlier provided link.

We have seen that Internet history cannot be easily summarized; there is no one single moment of discovery or invention. Press reports that claim the "Internet was invented in 1969" simply are not accurate; the term "internet" had not yet been coined. The most accurate summary would avoid use of the word "invent" altogether, as the Internet is not a single technology or device. One might date the birth of the Internet to the 1970s, when Kahn and Cerf began research on the Internet Protocol, or the 1980s, when it came into widespread use. But as the timeline shows, the basic underlying ideas date back as far as the early 1960s.

Clearly, then, if we take Gore literally at his word, he could not have "taken the initiative in creating the Internet." As the ARPANET moved from research to deployment, Gore was finishing college and serving in the Army in Vietnam. From 1976 to 1985, Gore served in the House of Representatives. From 1985 to 1992, he served in the Senate. The record shows that his interest in national computer networking issues became acute during his years in the Senate - when the Internet clearly was fully in operation.

So let us grant to Gore's critics that he was in no position to "take the initiative in creating the Internet." But is it possible that Gore's declaration, chosen in real time during a live-on-tape interview, could be simply a poor choice of words - sloppy speaking on his part - and that a slightly different formulation might be quite reasonably interpreted as totally accurate?

Clearly, the initiative takers were Kahn and Cerf in the 1970s. Additional information indicates internet research back to the mid-60s, albeit perhaps drawing board stuff, nonetheless, ARPANET was in existance, and Gore was still in college. Additionally, Gore was a Congressman from 1985-1992.

Are we now to not give the credit to Kahn and Cerf as those who "took the initiative to create the internet"? As opposed to Gore who may have touted data base exchange ideas, but certainly not the "initiator of anything relating to the internet.

Clearly, then, if we take Gore literally at his word, he could not have "taken the initiative in creating the Internet." As the ARPANET moved from research to deployment, Gore was finishing college and serving in the Army in Vietnam.

Again Maverick...you made a statement supporting Gore's comment by saying "Which he did". What "EXACTLY did Gore do...please post a bill, legislation or something in the Congressional Record that has clear substance as to his "INITIATING anything to assist in the creation of the internet.

If you are a Gore proponent, please leave your hat at the door and address the issue, not the party affiliation. I personally shudder at the thought of him being in the White House...but that has nothing to do with this subject...I would have posted this had it been the Pope.

Gore, like most politicians is an opportunist...not as bad as Jessie "let the women into Augusta" Jackson, but nonetheless, he is a major bullshitter. Please check out the other link about Gore quotes and you will see the picture of a man who is lost in his own world of fantasy. While "Gore in 4" may have a nice ring, he has a big "L" on his forehead.

He didn't do squat to help with the creation of the internet, and he sure as hell didn't take any initiative whatsoever.

Regards,
Wildcard