> No, what Parker said was "The casino
> lets you play because you are playing like
> an idiot". Parker does not describe
> his play as idiotic...there is a difference.
> Clearly name-calling, no?

I find that interpretation far fetched, but one person already agrees with you, so there may be something to it. But, if someone walked up to Ian Andersen and said "You play like an Asian," I would assume he would take that as a description characterizing his play, not him personally.

The impersonal nature of textual communication requires a thicker skin due to the higher probabability of misinterpretation. And if you softened the language, to say "You're playing in an ineffectual manner," by your interpretation we're calling that person ineffectual, period.

> Well man, I certainly don't won't to be
> thought of as having an Eliot Jacobson
> persona. I do take umbrage at not honoring
> established rules. If we can have no
> discourse to clear the air, and you stand by
> your statement then perhaps it is better we
> part company.

RE: The Mayor crack, I was just having some dry fun with you, poking fun at your persisence. But again, lighten up. You're more than welcome to play policy cop, and if people agree with you then you've done everyone a service, and if they don't then you might be wrong.

We do are best to leave no player behind. It would be a shame to see you go, and I would hope you might try a tactic other than picking up your toys and going home to accomplish your goals.

Good Cards,

V