This is how I see it...

[intheknow]

I think he means exactly what your doing.

All the "You said" followed by a statement taken out of context and questioned.

Hartly, you should agree that all to often some players in this forum are very quick to jump on a poster and label him a shill first and attack him, or slam a book for a misunderstanding between client and book, before the book has a chance to respond.

[Polar]

I would like to thank Bettorsworld for this site. When I first posted here it was as a player and the problems I have with the direction of the industry. I see %80 per cent of the books around today as being useless!

Somebody else wrote that I was promoting LooseLines. I really never wanted LooseLines to be involved in anything I do.

To be honest though, this site has been one of our best advertisments. We have signed up more customers through Bettorswould than I ever could have imagined. Good work.

The reason I think is that people want a book that wants to take bets, and not just keep a line up that is close to everyone else. You don't have to be a sucker to sign up with us. We just want players!! all kinds!!

This alone is the best Marketing you can ever have!! This is what REAL GAMBLERS are looking for. This is also something that if others try, they will probably lose money and go back to the "Don Best booking system".

P.S. remember it's The "DON BEST BOOKING SYSTEM" available at your local grocery.

[Hartley]

intheknow it was a joke - hence the red face.

Sheesh.

[azbob]

hartley...what exactly do you mean by "it was a joke?"

[ray]

err...can we lable Hartley is a shill for Itops? Or is it still too quick?

btw, Hartley, this is only a joke. (red face)

[intheknow]

Sorry there Hartley my man, I'm not well versed in the smilely face lingo. But do you agree with the post?

[Hartley]

intheknow I absolutely agree.

As for it being a joke what I mean is that I took from the post a line saying essentially that people in this forum are citical, taking things out of context and then look for inner meaning to which I replied "what do you mean by that" which is doing exactly as the line says.

It would be like somebody coming to me and saying "you're a goon who always seems to be looking for a fight"
and my replying "them's fighting words."

It's a joke, get it?

Never mind...

[chestrockwells]

Oh no, is Polar starting again with the REAL players and REAL Gamblers and REAL books speeches?

[azbob]

Hartley....what exactly do you mean "it's a joke, get it?"

[Hartley]

.

[MAXIMUM VALUE]

I agree with DOT MIX.

WWTS whats up with the tasteless sexist remarks?

You sound more like a small time corner bookie than someone who represents a respectable betting establishment.

MV

[chestrockwells]

Screw politically correct and all the assorted pretentious bs that goes with it.I thank my personal god that I no longer have to endure that crap. Like I said in the previous post, this is one example of why other books don't want to have a forum...someone's sensibilities might be bent. Or perhaps we should have lawyers screen our posts. So I hope that if nothing else, Roger doesn't come back in here and apologize for anything he said.

[Lou_Covers_Com]

I'd suggest that Bettorsworld should have an "Advertisements" group, and any kind of ad, be it worthy or not, has to be placed in that group.

Any ads that are placed elsewhere can be moved to the ad group by a moderator at his pleasure.

This would include ads from any sportsbooks, as well as plugs for columns (as I did for myself last week - sorry, I was kind of drunk at the time) and any other form of ad that doesn't relate to the topic at hand.

This would leave the discussin' to the discussion groups and any advertisin' to the ad group.

Yeah, I know that nobody would bother to read the ad group, but isn't that the point? If a moderator feels that there is an ad worth seeing, he can make a special note. That's what moderators are for.

Later,
Lou

[Dot Mix]

No--- wrong Chester.

I'm speaking for MYSELF. I formulated opinions a long time ago on what I consider appropriate and tolerable. Many, many years before I ever head the relatively recent and trendy phrase "politically correct" that you refer to. To each his own. I neither look for or expect an apology from anyone. While speaking only for myself---- I can't help but feel there are many others of the silent majority out there that may have been as much turned of by the tasteless dialogue as I was.
This doesn't mean the WWTS person is a bad person. All it means was I didn't appreciate it, wasn't impressed and didn't find it humerous. Thats all!

The reason I believe books don't want to participate in the forum is because they may paint themselves into a corner and have to answer uncomfortable questions truthfully from some of the very astute, intelligent and inquiring gamblers that reside here. Therefore ---much of the dialogue here is posted by "shills" so no accountable replys NEED be made by the book if the reaction to the shill is negative. Pretty safe way to try to get information across to the consumer. I have seen a lot of books present very logical and truthful answers to challenges posted here. That is when (in my opinion) this forum is at its best and has it's greatest value to those that come here to make intelligent decisions as to who in "Cyberspace" is going to be entrusted with their holding their money!!

Dot

[Polar]

Dot Mix,

You must remember guys like this think they are the only ones who matter. They don't stop to think who might be reading these posts. He might think he is the god of sports betting and belives women should not be betting, reading, or watching sports.
Or maybe he was drunk in a room full of Guys at half-time of a game and got these ideas. Who knows.... I don't think he was sober when he wrote that...
To me it did not make much sense and it was not funny either. And the others are wrong, He really should apoligize...

P.S. Leroys was a great Idea. There is nothing wrong with that statement. It was a complement.