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

Who wants to talk about blackjack when you are living the life of blackjack?

We talk about the current blackjack news and casino weather.....game conditions,politicians who are advantage players, gossip about people we hardly know...you name it. No sports. That's for Stanford's other internet success story. You seem to be fitting right in. Plenty of room for another opinion.

Is it me or does it seem to be a requirement that a web admin have a short fuse?

I guess you're not impressed that there hasn't been a busted post since 10/11 on BJ21.

I always thought the JM post was an irresponsible act....but nobody believed it for a minute. I suppose you know writing and publishing is May's bread and butter....was he being set up by Viktor????

"This site has truly become the National Enquirer of BJ."

You have a nice way with words, Norm. Some of us who relax here after leading a double life in the world and in the world of casinos .....successful in both...appreciate a well-turned page. I am proud you have discovered the essence of red chip...the one forum where every topic is appropriate. It's the only free page there is. You can tell a story with the best of them. It's all in the selection of facts you relate.

Regards,

scobee

I don't want us to be hogtied to talking blackjack......I want to see what JM has to say about blackjack. I haven't read his work and both you and Fezzik stick up for him. Sherlock says he sells books. Not to me just yet. Books and software is definitely appropriate for this forum. Even 'The Pro' has something nice to say.

I would be swimming with sharks on the Al Gore tangent. You guys are really playing above the rim.

scobee

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 didn't review my books. Viktor hasn't read my books. His opinion was based on Schlesinger's comments. Snyder, whose knowledge of advantage play was clearly immensely superior to Nacht's, used to stock my baccarat book at RGE. It was withdrawn because of petty spite and personal feud.

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 said from the start I did not believe the post about Viktor being a Griffin agent. Asking for verification as to his credentials is reasonable. An unknown man with no history or standing in the bj community suddenly acquires a database of a great number of advantage players. I ask questions.
As to the shutdown of bj21, there is a clear link between a RGE expert and the perpetrator, as is a matter of public record they play together and continue to play together. What censure has Grosjean or Nacht given that individual who damaged bj21 so badly? None.

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?

The matter has been settled. You apparently want to drag it on.

Haywood said he got the idea from my web page. If you don't believe me you can ask Haywood.

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.

Who benefitted most by Parker removing Viktor's post? Did BJ21 benefit more or did Viktor/RGE benefit more?

Please answer my question prior to making your response to the rest of my post. I believe that it is a fair question.

In my opinion, once a post is made it is better to let people respond and for visitors to see all sides to the issue. You're welcome to contribute your opinion. Deleting it just leaves people in doubt and they don't know what happened. All they saw was the negative post and do not get the opportunity to see all sides to the issue.

It isn't a matter or leaving up negative posts about RGE; in fact, it is all about being fair to Viktor and RGE to leave the post up. Several people defended Viktor/RGE and those posts remained as well.

Our reasoning is to be fair to all sides, but if you didn't notice, Viktor requested that these threads be left up because his traffic increases whenever these posts happen. I thought we were just respecting Viktor's wishes by leaving the post available to people.

We leave posts up out of fairness so that everyone can evaluate each side. Deleting it would be unfair to Viktor/RGE, etc.

Norm, if you want posts about blackjack, then I would recommend that you limit what you post to blackjack related posts. If you did that, no one could accuse you of being a hypocrite.

David

area of endeavor where personality, politics and money are involved.

i think the jm post was not so agregious as you believe or would like many to feel it was

i have seen far, far, worse, that was left to stand for quite some time

as far as "talking about bj", how about "playing" some bj

writting and talking are one thing but actually getting into the trenches is another

theory versus reality

now i depart for extended "real' play where i will "walk the walk", not just "talk the talk"

i think the real way to gauge a author or bj celebrity is by their play, if they play, and how often they play

It is probably the worst, most irresponsible attack ever made on BJ21.

No, that would be RGE's Don Schlesinger, who threatened to, and I quote "Rip out my f****** heart", on Green Chip (where I couldn't respond) because I asked him too many questions about his association with Peter Ruchman and his casino consulting.

1. I think there have been enough "wrongs" running around blame should not be placed on one side. The truth the way I see it is John May's writings are legitimate and of valuetand should be available for advantage players although some of the material is to say the least overhyped. Caution is needed but that is true for most writings in most fields. Victor's comments were misplaced and a gratuitous insult and had some hidden agenda because there is some value in his writings in any event IMHO.

2. For sure May's comments here were out of order and gratuitous. The timing and the citing of an anonymous email make me inclined to believe there was no email and the post was a juvenile lashing out and that belief is founded on a similar happening on Green Chip nongambling where May forged a name on a post because he had been criticised in another place by the person whose handle he used.

3. However, I do find it highly suspicious persons who associate with and Grosjean vehemently defends shut down bj21 just as Advantage Player started a push for membership. I am as suspicious of those actions as I am of the May anonymous email and Snyder's earlier actions in trying to oversell his private page as being uninfiltrated in contrast to Green Chip which never made claims of not being almost certainly infiltrated. Business gets mean.

4. I also think Norm's criticism of SW for not busting the May post was is misplaced. There is the personal attack guideline but that is to be taken IMHO in the context of dialogue. I am reminded of SW's questions about Bev which I think were good ones and continue to think were on the mark. It is not a personal attack when I discount Gary's progressions because I have had nice, cordial private email with Gary. I attributed the May post to pique and continue to doubt the veracity of an anonymous email but an issue was raised and others responded to my concerns before I read the post. IMHO it has been aired out and should have been rather than busted.

5. Nothing I have said here should imply any changes in my attitude of total respect for not just Norm's blackjack endeavers but also his other aspects.

From the above post:
**"Viktor hasn't read my books."**

Not only does he know everything about advantage play techniques,
but he has the power to read minds. He knows what other people know, he can even determine what books they have, or haven't, read.

The New World Order has been searching for this 'information thought police' ability for years, do you work for the CIA, MI5, or any other information gathering agency?

Your talents are being wasted at blackjack.

Not only does he know everything about advantage play techniques,
but he has the power to read minds. He knows what other people know, he can even determine what books they have, or haven't, read.

When someone attacks my work I ask them to substantiate their claims with reference to my work. When they are incapable of providing a single quote or a single criticism based on my theories, I assume they haven't read it, and are proceeding out of petty spite.

John May's post is entitled "I am stating a fact" .
What is the 'fact'? Well, if the Great John May asks you to respond in a certain manner, and you don't respond with quotes or thoughts based on his theories, then he "assumes" you haven't read his book.

This assumption is then considered a 'fact' by the Great John May.

Let it be known to all:
When the Great John May makes an assumption, it is a fact.

All bow to the Great John May!

If you had a case you would have pointed to a Nacht post which provided a quote or a reference, essential ingredients of any critical analysis. Nacht did not read either book as you well know, so you resort to mockery. This is weak.

Once the great John May makes an assumption, it is fact. Nothing can change it. Unless you can produce black-and-white evidence to the contrary, what he assumes is the FACT.

Anyone pointing out to the great John May that he might not have perfect knowledge of everything, and therefore his assumptions could be wrong, is pure heresy.

The Great John May says:
"Nacht did not read either book as you well know, so you resort to mockery. This is weak"

The great John May is now making pronouncements as to what I know.
No, Mr. May, O Great One, I most humbly suggest that *I* do not *know* if Nacht has or hasn't read your great tome.

I do agree with your final sentence. Any attempt to mock the Great John May should be considered 'weak' in the face of the great logical powers you have.