Vegas & The Aftermath - Diary

[KarmaDope]

Think this is what David was referring to:

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/1999/jan/23/weekend.julieburchill

Yikes!

That felt a bit harsh. Much of that was new to me.

The 60's & 70's were strange times. Not sure "enlightened" is the word, but things were viewed differently then. 

Again, not saying it is right, but many a young man, were they in John's situation, may well have done the same things. Not saying they should, but they would.

I'd ignore it. Julie Birchill is the "author". Google her. Vile, horrible woman.

[tikay]

The thing which has really surprised me is how much pessimism/despair there is. I may be remembering things wrong, but the 2+2ers seemed way more optimisitic just after Black Friday than they do right now.

Also amazes me how many players call Stars greedy for focussing on profits, when the only reason the players don't like the changes is because it affects their profits. I've never bought into this thing that a corporate entity making more money is somehow morally corrupt, whereas an individual making money by directly taking it out of the pockets of recreational players is fine. Neither are bad IMO. I think we just naturally have a them vs us, david vs goliath, bias against big companies. We also seem to have this sense of natural justice which makes us assume a for profit business has an obligation to act like a democracy.

I'm not saying that I like all the Stars changes, certainly don't like the manner they were communicated, but to expect anything less from any company is naive.

Agree with almost all of that. Looks like they handled the "refunds" thing badly this week, too. But they are HUGE, & these things happen, they just do. 

Cast your mind back 9 months, & 2+2 was alive with "we are going to boycott The Venetian". (The Sheldon thing).

I don't have any stats to hand, but every day I went to Venetian Card Room during WSOP, it was rammed full.

We talk a great game. 

[tikay]

Think this is what David was referring to:

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/1999/jan/23/weekend.julieburchill

Yikes!

That felt a bit harsh. Much of that was new to me.

The 60's & 70's were strange times. Not sure "enlightened" is the word, but things were viewed differently then. 

Again, not saying it is right, but many a young man, were they in John's situation, may well have done the same things. Not saying they should, but they would.

I'd ignore it. Julie Birchill is the "author". Google her. Vile, horrible woman.

There we go again - just because she is (arguably) "vile & horrible" does not mean she failed to speak the truth, does it?

Sometimes we don't like to see the truth. I'd rather I had not seen that article. But now I have.

Interesting, 'innit?

[Tal]

I think I first saw it on blonde. There was a Danny Baker review of a Radio 1 DJ's autobiography (I have a name in my head but I wouldn't want to libel anyone!), where a relationship is mentioned. There is then also discussion on that Peel quote and a bit around it. That was what I tried to find earlier, but all I could get was the guardian article. My first thought was David had combined the two stories in trying to recall the post.

[tikay]

I gotta go to work now, for the evening shift. Big evening in prospect in our own little way. My Twitter Feed (which I just use for work, really) has seen it's busiest day ever, & by some distance I think.

A new "Ambassador" for Next Door is due to be revealed on tonight's Show just after 8pm, so I "teased it", sort of "who might it be?"

Incred range of replies.

Charles Manson was probably the most left field suggestion.

Howard Lederer & Gus Hansen were also suggested.

Quite so, quite so.

[Tal]

I gotta go to work now, for the evening shift. Big evening in prospect in our own little way. My Twitter Feed (which I just use for work, really) has seen it's busiest day ever, & by some distance I think.

A new "Ambassador" for Next Door is due to be revealed on tonight's Show just after 8pm, so I "teased it", sort of "who might it be?"

Incred range of replies.

Charles Manson was probably the most left field suggestion.

Howard Lederer & Gus Hansen were also suggested.

Quite so, quite so.

I'm busy tonight. Are you sure the reveal is tonight?

[tikay]

I think I first saw it on blonde. There was a Danny Baker review of a Radio 1 DJ's autobiography (I have a name in my head but I wouldn't want to libel anyone!), where a relationship is mentioned. There is then also discussion on that Peel quote and a bit around it. That was what I tried to find earlier, but all I could get was the guardian article. My first thought was David had combined the two stories in trying to recall the post.

Now there's a thing - imagine how we would react if Sir Danny Baker had been on the Naughty Step for indiscretions?

Does not bear thinking about, does it?

[tikay]

I gotta go to work now, for the evening shift. Big evening in prospect in our own little way. My Twitter Feed (which I just use for work, really) has seen it's busiest day ever, & by some distance I think.

A new "Ambassador" for Next Door is due to be revealed on tonight's Show just after 8pm, so I "teased it", sort of "who might it be?"

Incred range of replies.

Charles Manson was probably the most left field suggestion.

Howard Lederer & Gus Hansen were also suggested.

Quite so, quite so.

I'm busy tonight. Are you sure the reveal is tonight?

The Chess Ambassador is a separate deal.

[Tal]

I gotta go to work now, for the evening shift. Big evening in prospect in our own little way. My Twitter Feed (which I just use for work, really) has seen it's busiest day ever, & by some distance I think.

A new "Ambassador" for Next Door is due to be revealed on tonight's Show just after 8pm, so I "teased it", sort of "who might it be?"

Incred range of replies.

Charles Manson was probably the most left field suggestion.

Howard Lederer & Gus Hansen were also suggested.

Quite so, quite so.

I'm busy tonight. Are you sure the reveal is tonight?

The Chess Ambassador is a separate deal.

Yes, I'm still negotiating on the number of sequins on the jacket.

[KarmaDope]

Think this is what David was referring to:

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/1999/jan/23/weekend.julieburchill

Yikes!

That felt a bit harsh. Much of that was new to me.

The 60's & 70's were strange times. Not sure "enlightened" is the word, but things were viewed differently then. 

Again, not saying it is right, but many a young man, were they in John's situation, may well have done the same things. Not saying they should, but they would.

I'd ignore it. Julie Birchill is the "author". Google her. Vile, horrible woman.

There we go again - just because she is (arguably) "vile & horrible" does not mean she failed to speak the truth, does it?

Sometimes we don't like to see the truth. I'd rather I had not seen that article. But now I have.

Interesting, 'innit?

The "truth" can be spun to appear a lot worse than it is. As you yourself said, it felt a bit harsh, and it was this I was responding to. I could rewrite that article, include all the salient points the author has mentioned, and it could sound like John Peel was a man who's only mistake was not checking the ages of his willing sexual partners at a time when attitudes were a lot more lax, so to speak.

Someone earlier mentioned Ian Watkins, the former lead singer of a band called the Lostprophets. Now he is a vile paedophile who is completely indefensible (he plotted with band fans to sexually abuse children under the age of two), but yet there were articles out there that tried to defend him as someone who got caught up in drugs and changed, until the entire sordid truth came out.

I guess my point is, don't let one article colour your view on somebody.

[tikay]

Think this is what David was referring to:

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/1999/jan/23/weekend.julieburchill

Yikes!

That felt a bit harsh. Much of that was new to me.

The 60's & 70's were strange times. Not sure "enlightened" is the word, but things were viewed differently then. 

Again, not saying it is right, but many a young man, were they in John's situation, may well have done the same things. Not saying they should, but they would.

I'd ignore it. Julie Birchill is the "author". Google her. Vile, horrible woman.

There we go again - just because she is (arguably) "vile & horrible" does not mean she failed to speak the truth, does it?

Sometimes we don't like to see the truth. I'd rather I had not seen that article. But now I have.

Interesting, 'innit?

The "truth" can be spun to appear a lot worse than it is. As you yourself said, it felt a bit harsh, and it was this I was responding to. I could rewrite that article, include all the salient points the author has mentioned, and it could sound like John Peel was a man who's only mistake was not checking the ages of his willing sexual partners at a time when attitudes were a lot more lax, so to speak.

Someone earlier mentioned Ian Watkins, the former lead singer of a band called the Lostprophets. Now he is a vile paedophile who is completely indefensible (he plotted with band fans to sexually abuse children under the age of two), but yet there were articles out there that tried to defend him as someone who got caught up in drugs and changed, until the entire sordid truth came out.

I guess my point is, don't let one article colour your view on somebody.

Yes, fair point, but when we read an article like that, I think we, in our mind, separate the facts from the fill.

If only there was a newspaper or TV News show that just delivered facts, with no opinion or colour. But they all have an angle these days.

[KarmaDope]

Yes, fair point, but when we read an article like that, I think we, in our mind, separate the facts from the fill.

If only there was a newspaper or TV News show that just delivered facts, with no opinion or colour. But they all have an angle these days.

Sadly, this is true. Maybe there's an opportunity there...

I think if you left not of your own volition, there would be a rather large protest from the Sky regulars.

We will try and check out tomorrow's show definitely. Julie coincidentally found her DVD from the night she was a guest on the show (I think with Snatiramas?) and that is something I do miss - the opportunities for Joe Public to appear if they wanted to/were successful on application. The live shows seem geared to more pros/serious amateurs these days and as such aren't as interesting for people like myself/Joobs who enjoy the community side of poker.

Joobs is currently trying to satellite into tonight's Bounty Hunter. I havent the heart to tell her that the show is a cash based show tonight.

[DaveShoelace]

Gotta be Channing for the ambassador. Hard to think of a better choice if so.

Plus if he becomes an official pundit, the sound guys can turn down his mic to stop him talking, rather than the just praying that it happens method the rest of us have to employ.

[RED-DOG]

Think this is what David was referring to:

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/1999/jan/23/weekend.julieburchill

Yikes!

That felt a bit harsh. Much of that was new to me.

The 60's & 70's were strange times. Not sure "enlightened" is the word, but things were viewed differently then. 

Again, not saying it is right, but many a young man, were they in John's situation, may well have done the same things. Not saying they should, but they would.

I'd ignore it. Julie Birchill is the "author". Google her. Vile, horrible woman.

There we go again - just because she is (arguably) "vile & horrible" does not mean she failed to speak the truth, does it?

Sometimes we don't like to see the truth. I'd rather I had not seen that article. But now I have.

Interesting, 'innit?

The "truth" can be spun to appear a lot worse than it is. As you yourself said, it felt a bit harsh, and it was this I was responding to. I could rewrite that article, include all the salient points the author has mentioned, and it could sound like John Peel was a man who's only mistake was not checking the ages of his willing sexual partners at a time when attitudes were a lot more lax, so to speak.

Someone earlier mentioned Ian Watkins, the former lead singer of a band called the Lostprophets. Now he is a vile paedophile who is completely indefensible (he plotted with band fans to sexually abuse children under the age of two), but yet there were articles out there that tried to defend him as someone who got caught up in drugs and changed, until the entire sordid truth came out.

I guess my point is, don't let one article colour your view on somebody.

Yes, fair point, but when we read an article like that, I think we, in our mind, separate the facts from the fill.

If only there was a newspaper or TV News show that just delivered facts, with no opinion or colour. But they all have an angle these days.

But how would people know what to think?

[TightEnd]

Well done on securing Neil. Works all round, in so far as i can see