Sorry, fella, but this forum consists of those who already play pool, not those that might play it one day. If the NY Times article will have a positive impact on the game, it is certainly not on those who post here. I think that if you reread my post, you'll see that I, too, celebrate the attention given to pool, one of its best players, and one of its best rooms.
Still, my post will have no impact on those that might one day pick up the game, and I will stand by my post, directed at those of us that already know pool's ladscape, that the article misrepresents the sport's current state.
I can see where you are coming from, and I do appreciate and approve of your philosophy here. Still, I think your response would be perfectly reasonable if I had written a rebuttal to the article and sent it into the NY Times hoping it would be printed, for then I would be addressing a completely different group of people than I am here on the AZB forum.
For the record, I have never and will never subscribe to the notion that one cannot post anything negative or controversial about pool here on AZB. All topics of pertinence to the game and its future are fair game in these parts, where pool's greatest intelligentsia reside. Once upon a time, many posters were infuriated by those of us that expressed some concerns about the IPT, suggesting we were somehow reducing the likelihood that the business venture would succeed.
The complete truth counts for something in these AZB parts, and the day I feel otherwise, my days of posting here will be behind me.
