Hi Joey:
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. Why would I cover points I didn't want to make?
No he hasn't -- on both accounts. It's true that I've personally never seen Geno disrespect any member of the forum, but it's also true that Geno is NOT the perfect poster in this forum either. If he has, he wouldn't have received the numerous warnings that I know for a fact he received about breaking (and continuing to test) the established forum rules. That's not the definition of a "perfect poster." Unless, of course, that was your opportunistic method of squeezing the word "perfect" in there, as if you were trying to extend Geno's sales pitch (i.e. that "birds of a feather" thing). By your definition, you would consider me a perfect gentleman if, while in your house for dinner, I was always respectful, even though I'm going around to all your family members and trying to sell each one of them a vacuum cleaner because "every home owner needs this, and it's obvious to me your home needs it."
I'm glad you didn't include me in the "naysayers" camp; which illustrates to me that you at least understand the difference between the naysayers (i.e. folks that say Geno's product is worthless) vs. Geno's marketing methods of ill repute. Like I said, I think Geno's product is good, and fills a missing gap in pool instruction.
"Allowances have to be made" -- are you serious? So you're saying that rules against advertising commercial products on a public forum should not be even-handed to all members, but instead are "negotiable" depending on a product's "worth"? So, who is to say what the threshold of a "product's worth" should be, in order that the rules be bypassed for the advertising of just that product? Who's the judge of this? You, Joey? And, you don't think that removing the even-handedness of the rules would make it a free-for-all -- i.e. every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Geno will all be stating their product is "needed by all pool players and therefore should be allowed to be advertised"?
As for Geno's "unique perspective" to the forums and making them better, that's very debatable. For one thing, Geno hasn't offered any "perspective." He hasn't shared any information to the forums, but instead he siphons readers from it -- much like Dr. Dave does when Dr. Dave, rather than answering the question with the appropriate information inserted directly into the post reply, he instead profusely inserts links in his post replies to redirect readers away from AZBilliards, to his website. For another thing, I'll bet my hat that Geno's angered just as many readers as he'd benefited -- if not more. This is especially so up until recently, when Geno's spamming in threads (especially those that had nothing to do with aiming) died down a lot. I'll give Geno credit on that account -- his ruthless spamming did die down recently.
"We interrupt your scheduled thread reading to bring you this advertisement." Ah yes, "birds of a feather flock together." I hope you get an agent's fee, Joey.
In summary, I don't (and have never) wished Geno harm. I know he's a great guy. But "great guyedness" does not buy him a free pass to spam forums -- no matter how good his product is. Joe Tucker's products are some of the BEST there is, and I dare say, have benefited just as many -- if not more -- pool players than Geno's product. But you don't see Joe spamming the forums, right? The popularity of his products is very high without all the spamming.
-Sean
Sean--- The ONLY thing (just about) that Geno has pasted the forum with is free phone lessons. Do you think that's a bad thing?
