Seriously, If I knew Steve -O was more or less a competitor of Druff( opposite agenda ) I would have said something earlier. The guy would argue against logic without end. It totally makes sense now that I know he and Druff are fighting for the same audience.
Pretty shallow Stevie....you got a ways to go IMO
Elaborate please Les.Originally Posted by limitles
Elaborate please Les.
From as far back as I can remember Steve O was at the fore front in debating Druff...The topic would change but it was always a brainiac back and forth. Some of it was legit but some was illogical, like this latest crap with private info being posted etc.
When you look at it as Steve - O being a "competitor" it's not so absurd. He would be more than happy to argue the opposite simply because he is a competitor.
When you say he is a competitor, what are you referring to?
From as far back as I can remember Steve O was at the fore front in debating Druff...The topic would change but it was always a brainiac back and forth. Some of it was legit but some was illogical, like this latest crap with private info being posted etc.
When you look at it as Steve - O being a "competitor" it's not so absurd. He would be more than happy to argue the opposite simply because he is a competitor.
I kind of thought he was a druff apologist/acolyte when he first showed up here.
Not sure what new developments are but Steve-O liked to run at the mouth about any and all topics, literally any topic someone would post he'd write an essay or 2 on like he was an expert - don't think it was just debating w druff
I thought Steve-O was a poker analyst/radio host with Bootsy Collins on LLPR? Whatever, he says he's a student of the game, I don't know to what level.When you say he is a competitor, what are you referring to?
I kind of thought he was a druff apologist/acolyte when he first showed up here.
I don't see Steve-O as a competitor, and I don't think he sees himself that way, either.
He has been overly critical lately, almost to where it appears he's arguing with me for the sake of being argumentative. That has been a bit disappointing.
#5 speaks to the bolded above...
From as far back as I can remember Steve O was at the fore front in debating Druff...The topic would change but it was always a brainiac back and forth. Some of it was legit but some was illogical, like this latest crap with private info being posted etc.When you look at it as Steve - O being a "competitor" it's not so absurd. He would be more than happy to argue the opposite simply because he is a competitor.
#1 -- I joined this site to debate Druff's stance on Lock Poker, so yes I have always held a contrarian viewpoint to Druff on this issue, and on some others. On a bunch of issues I agree with him.
#2 -- I have been doing my thing long before PFA, and I have been involved in the poker community long before Druff, even on forums. This isn't a new thing I'm trying to launch here or compete with him in any way.
#3 -- I have no vested interest in LLPR other than seeing two people I would consider Internet friends succeed. I was asked to appear on the show to help them out --I don't know why they would think this would be helpful-- and I've done what I can to help them. I use a different outlet than Radio, there is no competition between me and Druff. I do the same for VPR behind the scenes whether it's information about guests or booking a guest, and if Druff asked I'd do the same for PFA.
#4 -- I have been nothing but supportive of this site (up until the second Drexel incident) writing articles, linking to the threads here instead of other forums, etc. I have also donated money so people could play in the heads-up tournament, given small amounts to freerolls, and bought a piece of Druff at the WSOP.
#5 -- I like to debate, so even if I 90% agree with you I like to flesh out the other 10%. To me it helps my understanding of your viewpoint and the topic in general. Competition has nothing to do with it, it simply allows me to do my job as a writer better, especially if it's a topic like Lock Poker, it helps to know the viewpoints of all involved.
#6 -- my presence here has been very small over the past few weeks, other than the multiple posts on the personal info topic. So if I look "overly critical" it's because I've only responded in very specific threads.
#7 -- The photoshop at the top of the thread actually made me laugh
I don't dislike Druff. I disagree with him about things, such as his handling of the recent drama, but I don't dislike him. The fact that our arguements go so long tells me that we are both making valid points. It's also funny that people post these accusations as if all of my interactions with Druff are what they have seen on the forum. We've sent a number of private messages back and forth, I've interviewed Druff and written glowingly about his original project with PFA (even though I argued his Lock Poker stance). I'm not Marty or MWH, this is not personal to me at all, If you disagree with me that's fine, just argue your point.
The final thing I want to clear up is the personal info stuff. I never said it was right, or Druff shouldn't care about it. What I said was I disagree with his HANDLING of it. The people at the other forum that post this crap and then leave it up are completely at fault for this, it is strange and a bit creepy that someone would think posting a relative's Facebook page is "funny" somehow... the truth is it's a bit weird. So I COMPLETELY AGREE with DRUFF that this is out of line. But I think his handling of it has only exascerbated the situation, that was my criticism.
If I was flippant in my responses it was probably because I'm dealing with stuff in my personal life that makes this stuff seem fairly insignificant, I also apologized to Druff if I came across as rude in my responses in the thread, and let him know that I do think his family info being posted online is serious.
I write things about poker at my Poker Blog and elsewhere on the Internets
Well that was well said.
Stated very well.
Always liked Steve O's posts.
I would also like to point out that Low Limit Poker Radio is a pet project that Pikachar and myself have been working on for the past couple of months. I enjoy having Steve on very much as he is the most knowledgeable of the group as far as topics are concerned. We are not doing this for money as our show has zero sponsorship. We do it just for fun and hopefully entertain you guys.
Good to see you back lets stay positive!
your contribution on any level is much appreciated Steve-O but the Druff Jewdonk wars have a long history, that you may not have been aware of, the bottom line is Druff got the job done and another truce is in force.#5 speaks to the bolded above...
#1 -- I joined this site to debate Druff's stance on Lock Poker, so yes I have always held a contrarian viewpoint to Druff on this issue, and on some others. On a bunch of issues I agree with him.
#2 -- I have been doing my thing long before PFA, and I have been involved in the poker community long before Druff, even on forums. This isn't a new thing I'm trying to launch here or compete with him in any way.
#3 -- I have no vested interest in LLPR other than seeing two people I would consider Internet friends succeed. I was asked to appear on the show to help them out --I don't know why they would think this would be helpful-- and I've done what I can to help them. I use a different outlet than Radio, there is no competition between me and Druff. I do the same for VPR behind the scenes whether it's information about guests or booking a guest, and if Druff asked I'd do the same for PFA.
#4 -- I have been nothing but supportive of this site (up until the second Drexel incident) writing articles, linking to the threads here instead of other forums, etc. I have also donated money so people could play in the heads-up tournament, given small amounts to freerolls, and bought a piece of Druff at the WSOP.
#5 -- I like to debate, so even if I 90% agree with you I like to flesh out the other 10%. To me it helps my understanding of your viewpoint and the topic in general. Competition has nothing to do with it, it simply allows me to do my job as a writer better, especially if it's a topic like Lock Poker, it helps to know the viewpoints of all involved.
#6 -- my presence here has been very small over the past few weeks, other than the multiple posts on the personal info topic. So if I look "overly critical" it's because I've only responded in very specific threads.
#7 -- The photoshop at the top of the thread actually made me laugh
I don't dislike Druff. I disagree with him about things, such as his handling of the recent drama, but I don't dislike him. The fact that our arguements go so long tells me that we are both making valid points. It's also funny that people post these accusations as if all of my interactions with Druff are what they have seen on the forum. We've sent a number of private messages back and forth, I've interviewed Druff and written glowingly about his original project with PFA (even though I argued his Lock Poker stance). I'm not Marty or MWH, this is not personal to me at all, If you disagree with me that's fine, just argue your point.
The final thing I want to clear up is the personal info stuff. I never said it was right, or Druff shouldn't care about it. What I said was I disagree with his HANDLING of it. The people at the other forum that post this crap and then leave it up are completely at fault for this, it is strange and a bit creepy that someone would think posting a relative's Facebook page is "funny" somehow... the truth is it's a bit weird. So I COMPLETELY AGREE with DRUFF that this is out of line. But I think his handling of it has only exascerbated the situation, that was my criticism.
If I was flippant in my responses it was probably because I'm dealing with stuff in my personal life that makes this stuff seem fairly insignificant, I also apologized to Druff if I came across as rude in my responses in the thread, and let him know that I do think his family info being posted online is serious.
It's kind of like the Israeli's and Hamas, Hamas cant keep a truce because they just hate the jews so badly, so when they break the truce the Israeli's kick the shit out of them to make them stop then the hurt wares off .........
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote