Scooter Goodman - 2014 DCC

[sfleinen]

Same should hold true, however, for those who fund tournaments and put their monies in action when those monies were earned in an undesirable manner. It's not only the pool player that should be verbally tarred and feathered on this forum, yet that's the only one people choose to talk about. When tournaments are funded wiht monies that were earned in an undesirable manner, nobody says a thing. When action happens with monies made in an illegal manner, again, nobody says a thing.

It's a double standard. It is okay on this forum to talk about a pool player's skeletons in their closet, but these tournament funders and action participants who made money ILLEGALLY seem to get a free pass on AzBilliards Discussion Forum.

Jennie:

But, you have to start somewhere. It can't be "all or nothing." (And that's my pet peeve with today's society, too. They've forgotten the meaning of the words, "moderation," "middle ground," etc. It's either hot or cold, black or white, conservative or liberal, etc. You're forced to "pick a side -- an extremist side one way or the other." Where are those countless shades of gray in between the black and white extremist signposts?)

People on this forum discuss the pool players' skeletons in the closet, because it's the most obvious / visible. Not always visible is the issue of where tournament promoters got their money, although it's not entirely true that this issue has "never" been discussed here. It has. The glaringly obvious example I can think of right off the bat is Kevin Trudeau -- which, come to think of it (if I'm not mistaken), don't you and Keith support the efforts of the IPT? Hmm...

It's not fair to get on the backs of people here, admonishing them for what you see as a "double standard" because of invisibility. You're doing the "all or nothing" thing to them, and IMHO, it's not appropriate to force them to "pick an extremist side."

-Sean

 

[JAM]

Jennie:

But, you have to start somewhere. It can't be "all or nothing." (And that's my pet peeve with today's society, too. They've forgotten the meaning of the words, "moderation," "middle ground," etc. It's either hot or cold, black or white, conservative or liberal, etc. You're forced to "pick a side -- an extremist side one way or the other." Where's those countless shades of gray in between the black and white extremist signposts?)

People on this forum discuss the pool players' skeletons in the closet, because it's the most obvious / visible. Not always visible is the issue of where tournament promoters got their money, although it's not entirely true that this issue has "never" been discussed here. It has. The glaringly obvious example I can think of right off the bat is Kevin Trudeau -- which, come to think of it (if I'm not mistaken), don't you and Keith support the efforts of the IPT? Hmm...

It's not fair to get on the backs of people here, admonishing them for what you see as a "double standard" because of invisibility. You're doing the "all or nothing" thing to them, and IMHO, it's not appropriate to force them to "pick an extremist side."

-Sean

Well, as far as Kevin Trudeau goes, we can beat a dead horse some more. Keith and my own experience with Kevin Trudeau and the IPT was 100 percent different than many on this forum; thus, why our opinion differs.

I'm not getting on anybody's back. I'm saying what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Pool players aren't the only one whose hands are not clean. I'd venture to guess some of this forum's members have things they are ashamed of or maybe don't want known and hashed out on this public forum. I'll also go out on a limb and say some of them have gone to court and/or done jail time for their illicit activities.

To use an IPT example is ridiculous, Sean. We are talking about forum members who also do not have clean hands and yet their money made illicitly spends just fine in the eyes of this forum. It is, indeed, a double standard.

We all enjoyed the action and tournaments funded by illicit monies. Hmm . . .

 

[sfleinen]

Well, as far as Kevin Trudeau goes, we can beat a dead horse some more. Keith and my own experience with Kevin Trudeau and the IPT was 100 percent different than many on this forum; thus, why our opinion differs.

I'm not getting on anybody's back. I'm saying what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Pool players aren't the only one whose hands are not clean. I'd venture to guess some of this forum's members have things they are ashamed of or maybe don't want known and hashed out on this public forum. I'll also go out on a limb and say some of them have gone to court and/or done jail time for their illicit activities.

To use an IPT example is ridiculous, Sean. We are talking about forum members who also do not have clean hands and yet their money made illicitly spends just fine in the eyes of this forum. It is, indeed, a double standard.

We all enjoyed the action and tournaments funded by illicit monies. Hmm . . .

Why is using KT as an example ridiculous, Jennie? That money he put up for the IPT was gotten illicitly -- there's no doubt there, and his legal troubles prove it.

It's not ok to use him as an example, just because you and Keith had a great experience with him? That, to me, is more of a double standard than anything. (Hey, I'm just calling it out as I see it.)

And, let's say a certain tournament promoter is someone who has a 9-to-5 career, but partakes in a little gambling on the side -- which, correct me if I'm wrong, you support, right? Let's say some of the money he/she wins is from less-than-clean combatants, the source of which monies is very questionable, and most possibly is ill-gotten to start with. That tournament promoter puts that money up as added monies in a tournament. So that money is therefore "unclean" and is an example of a double standard in your eyes, because it's not discussed here?

Look, there are many examples in life where the real source of monies for anything can be questioned. Some people make it their life mission chasing that kind of stuff down. Others are willing to forego it if there are layers involved, and instead look at the deed being performed (i.e. the tournament).

I know that you are all about the pool players, and you 100% support them. But keep in mind that people discuss them here, because they are quite visible. Visibility is everything. It's like a politician -- don't accept the position if you don't want your doings discussed by the public. It may be shallow in your eyes to only discuss the visible and ignore / give a free pass to the not-so-visible, but hey, it is what it is.

-Sean

 

[JAM]

Why is using KT as an example ridiculous, Jennie? That money he put up for the IPT was gotten illicitly -- there's no doubt there, and his legal troubles prove it.

It's not ok to use him as an example, just because you and Keith had a great experience with him? That, to me, is more of a double standard than anything. (Hey, I'm just calling it out as I see it.)

And, let's say a certain tournament promoter is someone who has a 9-to-5 career, but partakes in a little gambling on the side -- which, correct me if I'm wrong, you support, right? Let's say some of the money he/she wins is from less-than-clean combatants, the source of which monies is very questionable, and most possibly is ill-gotten to start with. That tournament promoter puts that money up as added monies in a tournament. So that money is therefore "unclean" and is an example of a double standard in your eyes, because it's not discussed here?

Look, there are many examples in life where the real source of monies for anything can be questioned. Some people make it their life mission chasing that kind of stuff down. Others are willing to forego it if there are layers involved, and instead look at the deed being performed (i.e. the tournament).

I know that you are all about the pool players, and you 100% support them. But keep in mind that people discuss them here, because they are quite visible. Visibility is everything. It's like a politician -- don't accept the position if you don't want your doings discussed by the public. It may be shallow in your eyes to only discuss the visible and ignore / give a free pass to the not-so-visible, but hey, it is what it is.

-Sean

And you, Sean, keep in mind that while people want to talk about the pool players that are quite visible, so are some of the members here. I can elaborate, but I won't. I won't lower myself to that level like some are wont to doing with the majority of their contributions to AzBilliards, most of which has nothing to do with pool whatsoever. They like to kick a man when he's down. Seems to be a common theme with some members here. Why? I'm not sure. Maybe it makes themselves feel better about their own pitiful life filled with misery, self-doubt, and lack of self-confidence.

Find someone else to debate with, Sean. I have bigger fish to fry than engaging in a back-and-forth with you on this topic. I know you may possibly enjoy this type of colloquy, but it's not on the top of my bucket list at this juncture.

 

[sfleinen]

And you, Sean, keep in mind that while people want to talk about the pool players that are quite visible, so are some of the members here. I can elaborate, but I won't. I won't lower myself to that level like some are wont to doing with the majority of their contributions to AzBilliards, most of which has nothing to do with pool whatsoever. They like to kick a man when he's down. Seems to be a common theme with some members here. Why? I'm not sure. Maybe it makes themselves feel better about their own pitiful life filled with misery, self-doubt, and lack of self-confidence.

Find someone else to debate with, Sean. I have bigger fish to fry than engaging in a back-and-forth with you on this topic. I know you may possibly enjoy this type of colloquy, but it's not on the top of my bucket list at this juncture.

Wow, talk about getting ticked off because I'm calling out a little discrepancy with your position, Jennie!

Sure, there are *MANY* examples of posters here whose contributions to this forum can be easily called into question. It's also partly the reason why I'm not here on these boards as often as I used to be. But on those few occasions when I have a couple minutes to check things out here, I like to engage the few folks left here whose opinions and writing style I respect. You're one of them. And, isn't this a public board? And don't YOU yourself enjoy posting your opinion, debating topics, and colloquy? Otherwise, why do you post here? Is it supposed to be a one-way thing?

But hey, if you want to pull the "I won't debate with one of the problem children of AZB" innuendo, you go right ahead. That approach doesn't work with me, and I'll keep right on truckin'.

-Sean

 

[Black-Balled]

Same should hold true, however, for those who fund tournaments and put their monies in action when those monies were earned in an undesirable manner. It's not only the pool player that should be verbally tarred and feathered on this forum, yet that's the only one people choose to talk about. When tournaments are funded wiht monies that were earned in an undesirable manner, nobody says a thing. When action happens with monies made in an illegal manner, again, nobody says a thing.

It's a double standard. It is okay on this forum to talk about a pool player's skeletons in their closet, but these tournament funders and action participants who made money ILLEGALLY seem to get a free pass on AzBilliards Discussion Forum.

Reference keeps being made to tourneys funded by ill gotten gains. While I think it would be naïve to think it never happened, I can say I have never heard of a specific instance of it.

I also think such a thing would be equally vilified by the azb.

To hear scooters family is likely a small business adds to the self serving ignorance of his crimes. He should know the extent of investment business owners have and their dependence on earned income to keep their business, families and their employees proceeding as expected.

But of course the above perspective is different from his, so the logic obviously does not apply there.

 

[justadub]

Reference keeps being made to tourneys funded by ill gotten gains. While I think it would be naïve to think it never happened, I can say I have never heard of a specific instance of it.

I also think such a thing would be equally vilified by the azb.

I agree with this.

 

[JAM]

Wow, talk about getting ticked off because I'm calling out a little discrepancy with your position, Jennie!

Sure, there are *MANY* examples of posters here whose contributions to this forum can be easily called into question. It's also partly the reason why I'm not here on these boards as often as I used to be. But on those few occasions when I have a couple minutes to check things out here, I like to engage the few folks left here whose opinions and writing style I respect. You're one of them. And, isn't this a public board? And don't YOU yourself enjoy posting your opinion, debating topics, and colloquy? Otherwise, why do you post here? Is it supposed to be a one-way thing?

But hey, if you want to pull the "I won't debate with one of the problem children of AZB" innuendo, you go right ahead. That approach doesn't work with me, and I'll keep right on truckin'.

-Sean

I see you truckin' quite often on AzBilliards, Sean. I usually just watch.

 

[Jadssons]

He is a thief. End of story.

 

[PETROBOY]

He is a thief. End of story.

Thats a fact jack lol

 

[sfleinen]

I see you truckin' quite often on AzBilliards, Sean. I usually just watch.

A matter of [jaded] opinion, Jennie. I like to just "watch" the situations you get yourself into, as well.

 

[JAM]

A matter of [jaded] opinion, Jennie. I like to just "watch" the situations you get yourself into, as well.

I just usually consider the source today, especially when it comes to having the last word. Eh, Sean? :smile:

 

[JAM]

He is a thief. End of story.

At least he's not an anonymous forum troll or a banned member posting with multiple identities, spewing out ugly words behind the protection of a computer screen.

 

[sfleinen]

I just usually consider the source today, especially when it comes to having the last word. Eh, Sean? :smile:

Ah, the last word card. Look in the mirror, Jennie. And, let's try sticking to the topic of the thread?

 

[Spimp13]

Today on AZ..........


Carry on.....

 

[1on1pooltournys]

Keep this in mind...

There are a lot more "thieves" in coats and ties on Wall Street than we will ever see in the gambling world.

Sometimes we ALL make bad decisions we have to live with. But our lives are not judged on one mistake or bad decision.

 

[JAM]

Ah, the last word card. Look in the mirror, Jennie. And, let's try sticking to the topic of the thread?

Why don't you give me some more red rep, Sean? That's your next move, right?

 

[JAM]

Keep this in mind...

There are a lot more "thieves" in coats and ties on Wall Street than we will ever see in the gambling world.

Sometimes we ALL make bad decisions we have to live with. But our lives are not judged on one mistake or bad decision.

Hear, hear. Tap, tap, tap! :smile:

 

[PETROBOY]

At least he's not an anonymous forum troll or a banned member posting with multiple identities, spewing out ugly words behind the protection of a computer screen.

So it's ok to steal from hard working people as long as he doesn't disagree with you on here? If someone posted a one word thread on here and said white you would post black I think you really like to argue for the sake of arguing.

It must be the BCAs fault scooter is a thief


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JAM]

So it's ok to steal from hard working people as long as he doesn't disagree with you on here? If someone posted a one word thread on here and said white you would post black I think you really like to argue for the sake of arguing.

It must be the BCAs fault scooter is a thief


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, there you have it. The world according to PETROBOY!