I have recently met a couple of people here that are now my "friends". I shared the fact that I am a "half-assed" writer, and found that they also wrote. I read some things each had written, and found them to be fairly good. The IDEAS were superb, but the technical delivery was a bit ragged...BUT (and this is a big but), the content was excellent.
I then read comments that people had left for them. I was amazed at the number of mean, non-constructive comments people make about other people's writing. Most totally ignored the content of the pieces (which, after all, is the reason for writing), and immediately zoomed in on the way the material was presented. I feel sad for those people, as they are missing out on a wealth of interesting stories, information, and thought-provoking ideas.
THEN, I sat back for a bit and thought about that situation. After doing so, I came to the realization that this is not limited to this site or to critiquing writing, but that it is now a basis of our society. People are not trying to focus on ideas and what matters, but want to show others that they may not have an original idea in their head, but they can certainly post criticisms with good basic (very basic) grammar and spelling. Personally, I would take one good idea delivered poorly over 10,000 mindless, stupid criticisms of that idea that are all written "properly".
A couple of significant events in my life.
1. My "significant other" and I actually married in early November. She was diagnosed with stage iv colon cancer in October, and after much discussion, she finally gave in and agreed to marry me. Yes, it will help (tremendously) with the medical bills. But no, it wasn't because of that - although I had an extremely difficult time convincing her of that truism. We actually had been married once before when we were both very young and because I was not really ready to be married it didn't work out. After years apart, we finally got together again, and have lived together for over 6 years. My children are OUR children which makes it even better. We always got along, but the marriage was not what either of us really needed. Now it is.
2. I have sold my first novel (not the first I have written, but the first that has been accepted by a publisher).
I will let my friends know more about the book as things are finalized.
The woman whose profile page I have been posting about has pointed out several things that I had wrong in my previous posts, so I feel I need to correct them.
1. She did NOT ask people for money or for them to spend money at the "for profit" porn site she had in her profile - the fact remains, she is linking people to the "for profit" web site and NOT to her own personal web page. Also, I did NOT say that any of HER photos were offensive in any way. I DID say (and still say) that having that link on her profile is totally inappropriate for this site.
2. I said she told the "men" to check out her photos. That was incorrect. She directed her comments to the whole table, which just happened to be made up of men. I am sorry for not making that distinction clear. Also, she never said whether HER photos were sexually explicit - she just had the link in her profile to the for pay site and said to "search for her".
3. She has privately called ME a prude. Believe me, nothing could be farther from the truth. I am NOT upset at the content of her photos (I haven't even seen them), but I DO feel that having a link to a for profit porno site is inappropriate for this site. If she had put the same (regardless of how explicit or hard core) photos up in her OWN web page not linked to a for profit one, I would not have had a single concern and would have gone there to view them.
4. I want to note that I have NOT mentioned her name or ID and I have NOT reported anything at all to Game Desire. I just wanted to comment, not on the content of her photos, but on the fact that links to for profit websites (especially where minors can be involved) are not appropriate here.
Lastly, I am NOT trying to make this person look like some sort of "undesirable" - I DON 'T THINK SHE IS. I am just commenting on her linking to a site that is trying its best to take people's money.
In all fairness, I am deleting my post that said she solicited money while at the table.
It was pointed out to me that she didn't DIRECTLY solicit money for photos. She DID, however, include a link to the Porn site on her Game Desire profile and tell the men at the table to go there. It is a fine distinction, but to be fair, that distinction should be made. Perhaps I was too harsh in my last post. Also, I was careful NOT to disclose the person's name.
It seems that the fact that Racism and Republican both begin with the letter "R" is no coincidence in today's America. It certainly hasn't been that way in the past, but it DOES seem like there is a definite link now. WHY? How did the Party of Lincoln become the party that trades on fear and racism? They claim that they are the only REAL patriots, but support candidates who are racist -- something that isn't patriotic at all. WHY?
I am now changing my party affiliation and will support candidates that don't spew hate and invectives. My parents were immigrants and I am technically a Birthright Citizen. Because of that, I can no longer stay a member of a political party that doesn't want people like me.
Discovered a game - Word Shuffle - that actually causes me to use my feeble little brain AND avoid the frustration of the poker tables where there are a majority of people that really don't want to play the game, but simply spin the wheel of "fortune". Give it a try, you might find it to be a nice respite from the poker conundrum.
You know, someone I met very recently has led me to do a bit of thinking (don't laugh, I DO think on occasion). What is it that makes someone happy and what is it that can make people reject and treat that same person as a social outcast? Is it possible that the two things are the same? And if so, WHY and HOW could that be? WHAT in the world would cause such a phenomena? OR are those completely independent things that have no relationship to one another? I think this one will take a bit of time to puzzle out.
Wow, just took a look and realized that I haven't posted anything here for some time. Ah...seems like only yesterday...yeah, sure it does!
Have noticed there are quite a few players here that rely only their sheer luck in sit-and-go tournament play. You know the type. All in, all the time (especially on the first hand) - either pre-flop or on the flop. Doesn't matter what they are holding, they are simply thinking that their tactic will scare everyone (except kindred spirits) away. They are banking on one or two players calling their bet and then somehow (definitely not LOGICALLY) thinking they will somehow win the hand and build a big chip lead. I would love to see how those same players would play if it was actually THEIR money they were using for a buy-in.
Here is another of my observations based on playing here almost a month - almost all players here play in a "style" that really doesn't seem to vary much. Based on my totally unscientific survey (basically just paying attention to those playing against me), I have identified 3 basic styles: 1. totally reckless (this seems to be a "biggie" here); 2. overly cautious (the rarest of the three styles); and 3. easily frustrated (almost as big as "totally reckless"). Not only are there 3 styles, but I have noticed that players pick a style and then never vary it.
The totally reckless style is simply that. Players of this style pay to see every flop and very often go "all in" either pre-flop or immediately after. They do this without much (if any) regard to what cards they are holding. They count on their good looks (smile) and good luck to allow them to come out ahead. Amazingly, this seems to work fairly well...at least in short spurts.
The overly cautious players play fairly well with regard to knowing when to pay to see a flop, but then they seem to lose their way when it comes to betting their hands. Often they are scared off by any bet - especially after the turn. Also, they don't have any idea of how to bet to make the most of their strong hands. They either go "all in" immediately, or can't figure how to bet to maximize their returns.
Finally, there seem to be a large group of players who are easily frustrated. They do well for a period of time, but if they lose a hand they feel they should have won, they seem to give up or else try to make up what they "unfairly lost" on the next hand or two. If they could curb that habit, they would find they might do much better in the long run.
Well, there you go...another rambling post about my "second love" - poker.
Well, I have suspected this for a few days, but I am CERTAIN of it now...some people are playing multiple hands at the same table to increase their chances of "winning". This is really sad - REALLY sad. Again, it makes me wonder why they even play because rigging the game isn't playing the game and isn't even difficult to do. I have noticed multiple times where the same two players are on a table with me (and 1 or 2 other players). The two in question always bet on the same hands and follow a pattern of betting and folding to maximize the winnings of one of them (and the losing of the other players at the table). It is always the SAME one of the pair that ends up winning (unless one of the other players beats the rigged game). Most of the time the "second" player folders after betting on the River driving other players out - then the "first player" (the designated winner) re-raises and the "second" player folds. AND they only follow this pattern if there are other players playing and betting on the hand. There are a couple of other variations to this scenario, but they all work basically the same and end up with the "first" player winning (unless someone else ends up winning by some fluke). It took a while for me to make certain this is what is going on, but now I am positive this is happening. I guess all it takes is one person with two computers on the same desk and a desire to cheat more than the desire to actually play the game.