- Joined
- Jun 30, 1998
- Location
- Bierland
Yep, I get the drift of what you're sayin'....
Get the drift of what I am saying here?
LH
Yep, I get the drift of what you're sayin'....
Get the drift of what I am saying here?
LH
Whoa. That seems crazy from the way I think.
I wouldn't slink away at all either. I would actually go somewhere that I thought would help me though . Obviously if you are kicked out of the forum and cannot log in and you are told that CM will not help you, then you would be best served to go somewhere that actually would help you.
Why would you keep asking someone that is calling you a liar if you know that you are not? You would be wasting your time and you should go somewhere else for that help.
Yup, it's...
Bang on
A reasonable point in overall a reasonable post. I think though some people are going to get treated differently whether we want to, realise it or not, simply because you build up opinions of people and react accordingly. We all do it, mods included, because we are human and that's our nature.
I'd reiterate that for me personally, most of the issues faced are with how people post rather than what they post. As pointed out elsewhere, a good post often won't get fully appreciated if it's posted in a way that riles other people.
I just wish more posters would read back their own posts as if they were the recipient of the comments and see how they would react to it. They'd perhaps realize how it is going to rile/upset/antagonise and annoy people, not to mention damaging their own rep with those that just don't care about petty squables and bruised egos.
I couldn't agree more...and I'm surprised that a respected and together member like Bryand would believe that agreement with the mods is a prerequisite here for a peaceful and productive posting life. I have personally seen many interesting exchanges where members and mods differ in perspective and opinion...without unpleasant consequences.
If I may offer my own perspective, I would suggest that the real trick here is to be reasonable and civil in discussing issues, even when you may have a conflicting view on a topic.
Guys, with all due respect, every single criticism here is met with dismissal and minimization.
At the time, most of us FISCAL conservatives were treated with disrespect by mods and mod cronies alike.
In other words a person's history and habits here at CM become the context in which their criticism will be heard, generally speaking.
First, I totally agree that flaming and personal insults should not be tolerated.
Jet, I believe you participated in a 'spirited' thread I started about global warming? Although I remember your comments as being respectful and open-minded (and not challenged by the mods), I was branded ignorant and even willful although my posts were reasonable and civil.
But when I posted to greasemonkey I was really referring to his political ideology. Leading up to the 2008 presidential election Bryan made it crystal crear that he believed Obama's party was the saving grace for online gaming. At the time, most of us FISCAL conservatives were treated with disrespect by mods and mod cronies alike. (Backhanded dig: I wonder how Pokerstars feels about Obama now?)
All do respect, Jet, I stand by my post.
You might want to have a closer look at the criticisms GM has received here at CM. Being a "conservative" is not among them, AFAIK, nor are any "conservative" policies or views he may hold.
The idea that "you punished that guy, that guy wears cowboy boots, you are picking on people who wear cowboy boots!" is (a) exceedingly weak logic and (b) is pointing you in a completely bogus direction if you are actually looking for the truth.
I think you are mistaken here. I don't believe I have ever made anything "crystal clear" concerning Obama and his administration's stance on online poker. I may have mentioned somewhere (you'd have to show me) that banning internet gambling was on the Republican's to-do list in 2008...Leading up to the 2008 presidential election Bryan made it crystal crear that he believed Obama's party was the saving grace for online gaming. At the time, most of us FISCAL conservatives were treated with disrespect by mods and mod cronies alike...
I think you are mistaken here. I don't believe I have ever made anything "crystal clear" concerning Obama and his administration's stance on online poker. I may have mentioned somewhere (you'd have to show me) that banning internet gambling was on the Republican's to-do list in 2008You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.. But for the most part, I normally don't participate in the Political Rants section except to tell people to cool it. The mods are non-US persons and I'm and ex-pat, the rants section is mostly US focused, so I don't see how any conservatives were being treated with disrespect by mods.
We have no cronies by the way.
@ everyone - if you are ever made to feel uncomfortable with how other members or mods are treating you (myself included), please use the "Report a Post" function. You would not believe how many misunderstandings or minor meltdowns go unchecked.
Imagine the forum as a big comfy room with lots of chairs here and there, and people all around you can chit chat with. The thing is, most of these people wear masks and you don't know who they are. That may be creepy, but then, they don't know who you are either. That's why we have the Meister Meeting every year in London. We take our masks off there
Once you meet a person face to face, your attitude changes when dealing with them online. You still see the person and hear his or her voice when reading their posts. I don't think I've ever had a confrontational cyber argument with someone I've met in person. Too bad not everyone is in the the UK
How about a US location for a Meister Meeting some time? I would travel domestically to participate in a fun spot? CA, Phoenix, Vegas, -- as long as it has a casino near by -- many others might come also??
Diane
How about a US location for a Meister Meeting some time? I would travel domestically to participate in a fun spot? CA, Phoenix, Vegas, -- as long as it has a casino near by -- many others might come also??
Diane
...I don't think that having a beer with me is on his to do list...
I honestly feel (my opinion only) that if I were going after answers about lies to Cherry Red that he would not have ran interference so fervently.
It sure is. If you make it out to London 24 January at Waxy O'Conners, I'll square you away for as many pints as you like.
Gambling grumbles has their own agenda from what I've read...one of them being the attraction of players to the site. Just have a look at some of the sites they advertise:
Cool Cat
Prism
Cirrus
Palace of Chance
Getting the picture?
Casinomeisters PAB may not be 100% right 100% of the time, but they are 100% thorough and 100% honest. I'll take their judgement over rogue-promoters any day.
Cool Cat Casino is very good at promising to pay, but nowhere as good at actually doing so -- that, at least, has been the experience of Sue M of Fargo, North Dakota.
"I have an approved withdrawal of $932 with Cool Cat Casino" she told Gambling Grumbles. "I requested a withdrawal of $1000 on 6/30/2010. They approved $1000 minus $68 for a bonus coupon, leaving $932 which was approved on 7/9/2010."
It was supposed to come by overnight check, but that "overnight", so far, has taken 6 weeks and there still is no check in sight.
She has been repeatedly told that she will be paid, and even given exact dates of when, but each time the day came the check did not.
"I think I am getting the run around, please help," she asked us.
We tried. We wrote to Cool Cat, saying "if there are other factors of which I am unaware, please let me know. If not, can you send her the check immediately and tell me that it is being mailed out?"
Well, Cool Cat certainly didn't make any false promises to Gambling Grumbles. In fact, it made no promises at all. It simply ignored the e-mail which we sent it.
It did, however, send Sue some more letters promising to pay by a particular date and, again, failed to send the check.
As the beatniks used to say, "That is not cool, cat."
If you are thinking of playing at this casino, you might want to think again -- unless, of course, you like getting a lot of empty promises.
Riiiiight.
So if The Advocate allowed Westboro Baptist to buy ad space, that would be peachy since there wouldn't be any articles that are pro-bigoted whackos.
Nifty, I want to take this opportunity to thank you for proving what I have long said -- advertising considerations play absolutely no role in determing how Gambling Grumbles handles (or reports) a dispute.
Of the four casinos you mentioned, we have received a complaint about only one of them. That resulted in awarding them a "Skull & Crossbones" and the following report:
As Gambling Grumbles has been accused on this forum (by posters, not by management) of being both "pro-player" and favoring casinos, I will plead guilty to both charges. Where the player is right, we are pro-player. Where the casino is right, we are pro-casino.
One last point on which there seems to be some confusion. We do not demand that a casino allow us to show how they managed to find out that someone is a fraudster. (Although, to tell the truth, if the police can detail in open court how they caught a crook without making it impossible for them to capture future ones, it would seem that a casino can do the same thing.)
What we do require is that a casino say, specifically, what the person did -- and say so "on the record". There is no other way for someone who is accused to defend himself. We have had more than one case where the casino did, in fact, allow us to post the specific charges and the player was able to refute them to the casino's satisfaction -- resulting in the player being paid.
If you are thinking of playing at this casino, you might want to think again -- unless, of course, you like getting a lot of empty promises.
Chuchu,
Perhaps an explanation is in order. By profession, I am a journalist -- and have been one for over 4 decades. Both Graeme Levin and I decided many years ago that the only way we would run Gambling Grumbles is by following strict journalistic standards.
Chief among these is that the advertising (which Graeme handles) and the editorial content (which is completely my responsibility) can not, and should not, overlap. This works in both directions. The New York Times, for example, has a liberal editorial policy and generally endorses Democratic candidates. It does not, however, restrict conservative organizations from buying advertising space nor does it refuse advertising from Republican candidates.
Any decent newspaper carried, in 2009 and 2010, scathing reports about Toyota and the safety faults in the cars. At the same time, they also ran advertisements from Toyota dealers.
When Julie first came to Gambling Grumbles, she did so as my assistant. The first thing I insisted upon was that she never, ever, even give a thought as to whether a casino advertises with us or not. She agreed with that and also followed that policy. When I decided to move on to other things, I had no reservations about handing over the editorial responsibilties to Julie and never found a reason to regret that decision.
Advertisements tell you what the advertiser wants you to know about itself. A journalist tells you what he has learned about someone, whether he be an advertiser or not. In the end, of course, it is up to the customer to decide (in the case of on line casinos) where he wants to play. I see nothing wrong in his taking an advertisement into consideration but I think he would be wise to see what other players, and sites like Casinomeister and Gambling Grumbles, have reported about the casino.