I think you might have misunderstood what I wrote - I certainly didn't say that your post (sorry, blog) was too philosophical, and I wasn't under the impression that my post was attacking you, either
What interests me about your posts (sorry, blogs) is that they can be read on different levels, in the same way that my daughter and I both laugh at The Simpsons, but we are usually laughing for different reasons. For example, your OP can be read as somebody simply stating the obvious, but it can also be seen as having a subtext that it is very easy to assume that all other players are donkeys or fish, rather than looking at oneself and our own possible weaknesses
Also the reference to Cool Hand Luke probably means very little to a lot of people, whereas to those familiar with the film (movie) it ties in very well with the overall theme of the OP
Hmmmm
This is getting "curiouser" and "curiouser". There are several things you said on which we agree about "reading things on different levels... you and your daughter seeing the same thing and taking different inferences". this is the heart of communicating. Each speaker/writer knows (sometimes not) the message they are trying to convey. Each reader/viewer knows (sometimes not) what they heard/saw. It is attention to the third element of communication that let's the reader know their intention was accurately (not correctly or properly) conveyed with clarity and fidelity to the meaning of the communication. Often, from feedback or response, the speaker learns meanings and subjects not originally intended and whether what was meant was received or not.
Everything communicated has different levels and they are sometimes interpreted accurately sometimes inaccurately, seldom are any communications stripped of socio-economic-ethno-education-background (and other) filters. This is often why strangers struggle to be understood and people with similarities, familiarity and history understand more easily.
Clearly what you wrote could be interpreted, I wont use your word "attack", but as critical or having "misunderstood" what I was saying. Criticism is fine and can give rise to a response/reaction. Such a simple a thing as saying "your post (sorry blog)" - twice not being under time constraint and in an easy-edit environment, gives a clear suggestion of some additional meaning.
Response/reaction to what was written can give rise to what can be interpreted as a necessity to defend for example: your remark "...that it is very easy to assume that all other players are donkeys or fish, rather than looking at oneself and our own possible weaknesses". From my perspective of what I meant to convey that remark is plain silly and opposite the very words written - I am sure most won't feel that way. Anyone who knows me knows better. My view of things I have posted here could not be further from your interpretation. Almost everyone who has contacted me on Charles Linebeck's statement for example get's it. As a matter of fact this is from a lecture meant to dress down a group of smartassed, know-it-all, 18 year old sophomore, scholarship kids who all failed a test simply because they thought they knew everything. I was in that class. It was the beginning, for me, to understand the lessons most adults get when reading those lines.
The listener/viewer never misunderstands but always uses their own faculties, however base or refined, to interpret the message. It is incumbent to the person wishing to be understood to have and employ the tools necessary to convey the message intended. This is why communication is interesting, full of errors and ripe for improvement for by everyone. After all most people want to be understood.
Finally, I am aware that the way I said some things I did may be "misunderstood", some I have inserted purposely and have left as examples of what I am trying to explain. Can you find them? lol
Jon Holt (Merlin333 😎)
Oh Yeah: I bet more people have a clue about "Cool Hand Luke" than you think..
This is getting "curiouser" and "curiouser". There are several things you said on which we agree about "reading things on different levels... you and your daughter seeing the same thing and taking different inferences". this is the heart of communicating. Each speaker/writer knows (sometimes not) the message they are trying to convey. Each reader/viewer knows (sometimes not) what they heard/saw. It is attention to the third element of communication that let's the reader know their intention was accurately (not correctly or properly) conveyed with clarity and fidelity to the meaning of the communication. Often, from feedback or response, the speaker learns meanings and subjects not originally intended and whether what was meant was received or not.
Everything communicated has different levels and they are sometimes interpreted accurately sometimes inaccurately, seldom are any communications stripped of socio-economic-ethno-education-background (and other) filters. This is often why strangers struggle to be understood and people with similarities, familiarity and history understand more easily.
Clearly what you wrote could be interpreted, I wont use your word "attack", but as critical or having "misunderstood" what I was saying. Criticism is fine and can give rise to a response/reaction. Such a simple a thing as saying "your post (sorry blog)" - twice not being under time constraint and in an easy-edit environment, gives a clear suggestion of some additional meaning.
Response/reaction to what was written can give rise to what can be interpreted as a necessity to defend for example: your remark "...that it is very easy to assume that all other players are donkeys or fish, rather than looking at oneself and our own possible weaknesses". From my perspective of what I meant to convey that remark is plain silly and opposite the very words written - I am sure most won't feel that way. Anyone who knows me knows better. My view of things I have posted here could not be further from your interpretation. Almost everyone who has contacted me on Charles Linebeck's statement for example get's it. As a matter of fact this is from a lecture meant to dress down a group of smartassed, know-it-all, 18 year old sophomore, scholarship kids who all failed a test simply because they thought they knew everything. I was in that class. It was the beginning, for me, to understand the lessons most adults get when reading those lines.
The listener/viewer never misunderstands but always uses their own faculties, however base or refined, to interpret the message. It is incumbent to the person wishing to be understood to have and employ the tools necessary to convey the message intended. This is why communication is interesting, full of errors and ripe for improvement for by everyone. After all most people want to be understood.
Finally, I am aware that the way I said some things I did may be "misunderstood", some I have inserted purposely and have left as examples of what I am trying to explain. Can you find them? lol
Jon Holt (Merlin333 😎)
Oh Yeah: I bet more people have a clue about "Cool Hand Luke" than you think..
Merlin333 said:KingCurtis I checked your blog out - cool!!!
glad that you checked it out....myabe youll try my challeng and add some comments!!!
I like this sentence, where it refers to your view and my interpretation, it implies equality, it accepts that you don't know everything and that we are both potentially able to learn from each other
Although the punctuation is a bit suspect in this sentence there is a much more serious weakness it, in that it implies that you have fallen into the very trap that your tutor was apparently warning you about. Assuming that your sentence means that you and the people that have contacted you about the statement understood it properly, and I didn't. The fact that I am the only person to air that viewpoint does not mean that I am wrong and you are right, only that we have taken different things from it. It's reasonably clear to me that people who think they know better than everybody else will often assume that a lot of other players are donkeys, when in fact if they had played the hand differently (by being more aggressive, for example) that person might not have been in a position to steal the pot on the river, for example. Therefore sometimes it is their play that can be the cause of the problem, and not always other people being donkeys, as they have assumed
There is indeed a subtext to that, but it still doesn't necessarily need to be implied that it is me attacking you, although I could arguably be gently poking fun at you. I have noticed in more than one of your threads that you quite often use the word "blog" in a situation where I would use the word "post". What I am implying by including that phrase twice is that:
- I have noticed you using the word "blog" in a context that I would not use it (in the same way that I have noticed Munchrs spelling similarities as simularities more than once)
- If you want to use it in that context you are free to do so, but
- I will continue using what I consider to be a less ambiguous word, namely "post"
- Although I wouldn't personally use it in that context I am interested to see whether it provokes any comment from other forum users, if somebody else found your use of the word "blog" in that context strange or amusing they would often react to me highlighting it twice in this manner. I'm not arrogant enough to assume that I know better than you, language is constantly evolving, internet phraseology evolves even more rapidly than spoken language does, and "blog" may well be starting to replace the word "post" as a description of what someone writes in a thread in a forum
People will quite often see what they want to see. I am a strong believer that donkeys should not be abused via chat, because the profitability of online poker is largely based on so many donkeys playing online poker, and I don't want to discourage them from playing in a manner which makes it easier for me to take their money from them
Various of your points could potentially be seen as supporting that premise, so it's not really "plain silly" to suggest it 🙂
Apologies for such a long post 😀
If I may perchance illuminate the thread (diary?) with my musings on debates semantic and/or subjective contained herein.
Merlin, you write prettier than a $20 whore (c. Mel Brooks - Blazing Saddles) but if you take offense at the stuff in this thread you'll wear out your keyboard replying. My take was that your post "reminded" the reader of someone with a similar name who posted something similaar, not that you shared his beliefs.
NWF - for someone with a ludicrous name that's a mighty fine post 🙂
Merlin, you write prettier than a $20 whore (c. Mel Brooks - Blazing Saddles) but if you take offense at the stuff in this thread you'll wear out your keyboard replying. My take was that your post "reminded" the reader of someone with a similar name who posted something similaar, not that you shared his beliefs.
NWF - for someone with a ludicrous name that's a mighty fine post 🙂
Obvious, sure... but how often have you heard players pissing and moaning when some "donkey" cracks his aces? It happens to most of us every single day, it's common, yet people can't get over being shocked and shaken when it happens.pantin007 said:
I love the post and would much rather see one of these than another worthless "how does this &@%#$ DONKEY CALL ME!" rant.
