Tyler_Paris

You facist. I was only giving my opinion. I'm not worried about this. I have no personal investment in this whatsoever. I wrote, simply, a statement of opinion. Give me a break.

This thread is getting out of hand. My intentions weren't to start endless petty bickering, however, it seems unavoidable when you merely express an obviously unpopular view. Is there any way of taking this down?

Alright, fine, he's a good player. I've always said that he was. I'm extremely embittered by the actions he's been taking recently. I suppose my opinion at this point is biased. Don't freak out over it. It's not really fair to calling me ignorant for assuming one way or the other if you are assuming as well and then going on to explain one would never know because of TV edits. Personally, I haven't seen enough of him to make a serious judgement.Do you kids have nothing better to do than pick fights all day with people simply expressing their opinion?

I think he was referring to Raymer's skill in NL tournament poker. In that sense he's right. Raymer waited for the cards and played only the nuts. That's going to inevitably work every once in a while, but it is not going to accomplish what it takes to be an NL tournament great or someone who will revisit final tables many times. By literal profession, sure, he plays poker for a living now. If you want to talk about "for years", no, he was a lawyer previously by profession.I do also believe the lack or presense of skill or profession doesn't invalidate Raymer's opinion on the lawsuit. He

Most definitely. I think Negreanu said it best when explaining the lawsuit aspect in another thread in saying it was opening up a whole can of worms. A bill is in congress right now to not only ban but take aggressive action in stopping online poker and gambling. This is the wrong time entirely to add any negative connotation. Raymer, to me, still hasn't given a solid explaination of why the lawsuit is efficacious and how it is so. It seems like he's mostly resorted to "Because it is, and i know so because I am a lawyer". How about explaining your divine understanding upon us lowlies Gr

yeah, I read that and in no way took that as an apology.

Daniel is a person. He doesn't exist soley for your entertainment or interest. Let the guy do his thing.p.s. - golf kicks ***.

The actions Raymer made? I wasn't aware of any that had been made since the initial ones. Can I get a link to some info on that? As far as what he did in law, I was always under the impression he was not in corporate, I could be wrong though. Thank you for your input.

Hahaha is that sarcastic? If it was it's pretty funny. Really though, I'm not trying to be an ******* about this. It's mostly that Daniel as a player and as a personality has been one of my favorites since he's been around, and I've had a wide respect for Raymer until the recent comments and I was pretty disappointed.

Regardless of the apology, I still hold my convictions.I suppose it's good to hear nonetheless.

Greg Raymer wears a halo about himself, but not in a normal fashion. He wears it as a sized 56 belt around his waist to keep his *** afloat. His pompous and self assumed martyrdom actually had me fooled into thinking he was a decent person and more than a sensless teenaged boy. I suppose his respects are similar to a small room with mirrored walls; they only exist virtually, however, psychologically necessary to put up due to such a small room.Raymer: you were not a corporate law attourney. You dealt mostly with insurance and personal injury claims. If you would like a crash course in co