What's the reason for Wong to bust the biggest informative groups of posts?

What's the reason for Wong to bust the biggest informative groups of posts down below? The OPP-Count-vs-Speed-Count posts are informative & useful for anyone who wants to know the true nature of the 2 counts. From that biggest threads of posts, I have learned:

1) that Opp Count is "almost" the same as Speed Count except for a $895 savings., i.e., Opp Count is free while Speed Count is sold for $895. (now it's a $795 savings after the biggest debate in the most recent bj21.com history).

2) that Opp Count is a positive counting system for newcomers (at least 40% of KO Rookie).

3) that posters' charaters are truely reflected among their posts during the biggest debate. If I want to make a friend among those posters, I will have a good idea whom I shall choose as a friend with good character.

4) above all that...BJ21.com is the king of all free bj message boards. It allows all friends and/or enemies to post at the same board. That means all readers can see ALL SIDES OF STORIES & draw their own conclusions.

So why bust the biggest informative threads that have served useful purpose?

What�s the reason for Wong to bust the biggest informative groups of posts down below? The OPP-Count-vs-Speed-Count posts are informative & useful for anyone who wants to know the true nature of the 2 counts. From that biggest threads of posts, I have learned:
1) that Opp Count is �almost� the same as Speed Count except for a $895 savings., i.e., Opp Count is free while Speed Count is sold for $895. (now it�s a $795 savings after the biggest debate in the most recent bj21.com history).
2) that Opp Count is a positive counting system for newcomers (at least 40% of KO Rookie).
3) that posters� charaters are truely reflected among their posts during the biggest debate. If I want to make a friend among those posters, I will have a good idea whom I shall choose as a friend with good character.
4) above all that...BJ21.com is the king of all free bj message boards. It allows all friends and/or enemies to post at the same board. That means all readers can see ALL SIDES OF STORIES & draw their own conclusions.
So why bust the biggest informative threads that have served useful purpose?

We are reluctant to delete posts while a thread is active, but we feel no obligation to preserve all threads forever. Threads that brought multiple complaints are candidates for deletion after they have been inactive for two weeks or more.

Stanford Wong

It contained strongly-worded but insightful debate from both sides about the merits of the system. The incidental flames were regrettable but, as the original poster in this thread pointed out, quite helpful as well, if someone wanted to assess the "character" of a poster for future reference.

The thread should have stayed up, IMHO. Deleting it was deleterious to BJ21.com's reputation nd credibility.

Is it possible that the underlying reason the thread was deleted was actually in order to protect the financial interest of the sellers of the speed count system and their highly lucrative $895 per student fee? Could it be that they were the source of the "multiple complaints"?

For anyone remotely considering the speed count system, save yourself the $895 fee and visit bjforumonline.com for a free version. Or for the $895 you save and some investment in time, you could buy a lot of books and software and then learn a more advanced count with higher BC,PE and IC.

I think Stanford Wong would allow public scrutiny of paid services stand, even if the service was his, which this is not.

I believe the ones who overwhelmingly lost the debate demanded that their embarrassment be taken down. It's their nature.

They may balk at my opinion, but I doubt you will see them saying that the thread should not have been deleted.

The personal attacks should have been immediately removed. They were a violation of the stated policy of this forum. Since they were not immediately removed, the thread, including the reprehensible attacks, should NOT have been busted. The policy now and for years is to allow personal attacks against authors to remain up until everyone has read them. Only then is the evidence that this forum allows such attacks removed. The bad taste is left in the readers' minds without the evidence.

I am disgusted by the fact that this thread was deleted. It is a diservice to all that have been fooled by the absurd claims that OPP is nearly as good as HiLo. And those claims remain elsewhere to the detriment of the BJ community. Those that wish to see the truth can still see the sims at www.advantageplayer.com or on the free CVCX Online service.

CVCX Online

I don�t know if you saw all the posts in the thread. Some of them got way out of hand. There was a post with a subject line �X Stole Money from a Team bank�. There was no charge in the body of the post about this, the subject line was used to get attention.

There was a lot of back-and-forth �You�re a Liar.� �No, You�re a liar�, �Oh Yeah, Yeah�, etc.

I wrote to BJ21 management and suggested that some of the posts be busted. The issue that they confronted was �Where do you draw the line�. It was hard to figure out which posts could be left up, and which should be busted. They told me that they would consider busting the whole thread at some point.

The specific points that you mentioned can be re-posted by other posters, or by yourself. However, personal attacks should not be re-posted.

Here are some excperts from the Site FAQ list and from the Posting Tips:

7. Posts attacking a person, or multiple persons, should be deleted. More leeway should be given to posts about public figures. Less leeway should be given to posts about members of the BJ21 community. Criticisms of products and ideas should not be deleted. Example: It is okay to say that a book stinks, but not okay to say that the author stinks. It's okay to think that another poster is an idiot, but not okay to say so.

21. Posts that were orphaned after someone deleted another post do not have to (but may) be deleted if they are not able to stand alone.

1. Choose your subject heading carefully. Ten times as many people will read your subject line as will read your message.

> I think Stanford Wong would allow public scrutiny of paid services
> to stand, even if the service was his, which this is not.

No, but the developer of Speed Count advertises right here, everyday, on page one -presumably it's not being done for gratis. And OPP brought the light to their little corner of the world. Cardkountr makes a valid point.

Of course the requests could have come from those that hyped a "new-break through" and "major innovation" in blackjack science likening it to 75% of HILO. Kinda embarrassing I'd guess when it came in at less than 50% of KO Rookie.

I'm guessing MathProf probably got some calls from the good old boys club; he must have been nominated to take the heat on this one. His, as well as Wong's lame excuse to bust that string just plain smells bad.

> I believe the ones who overwhelmingly lost the debate demanded that
> their embarrassment be taken down. It's their nature.

Careful now, the BJF folks won't take kindly to you dis-respecting them like this.