Sheiky

Again, no.

Agree completely

Then RF2 goes: Wait a sec, why on earth would Joe Smo want to watch an online poker game that I don't understand between people I don't know and without being able to see their cards or listen to Norman Chad? I think i'll stick with WSOP re-runs thank you very much.

Yeah it really doesn't make sense without this.

Exactly, the people who were downloading FCP were already on the forum and already played poker. How many people on 2+2 do you think don't have Full Tilt on their desktops?People who don't even have Full Tilt are not going to be that interested in railing a PLO game where they can't even see the cards. Again, all the publicity garnered is with people who already know what Full Tilt is.

No, they're not.They're not advertising it on TV, they're not buying spots on radio shows, they're not promoting it in news papers. So far, Full Tilt has done nothing to publicise this, and they won't do. The only people that are excited about this are the people that already know who Tom and Phil are. This isn't Chris Moneymaker or rounders, it's a big event insider the poker community but it's not going to bring in anyone that wasn't into poker beforehand.

No.

I think the main thin is that no one will 4 table for a significant amount of hands anymore, which is what he really wants from this challenge. Tbh, I think it's far far more about the challenge than the money. No way Ivey or Durrr will quit eachother before the 50k whatever the results (unless one goes busto). It has nothing to do with sparking interest in the poker community or anything like that, Durrr just wants to play.

I hate it, but 'Lynch the nigs' with the lizard avatar cracks me up everytime.

The amount of people who are fat for medical reasons make up an incredibly small % of the overall amount of fat people.

I'm not saying YOU do, but as you do not think it should be illegal, why should parents be given the right to do things to their own child that they would not be allowed to do to somebody elses? You're all for freedom and whatnot, so why does the child not receive any freedom from not being hit over the head?

Just throwing this out thereYou agree that it would be illegal for you to hit another person's child around the head?What gives you the right to hit 'your' child? Surely he has just the same rights as this other child (who you would not hit) and you hitting him would be an impeachment on his freedom as a human being?

I was joking, as I know three people older than 40 (my parents and grandmother) so you're challenge would be fairly difficult to complete.

Again, i'm hoping this is a joke.

I hope this is a joke

Why are you continuing as if I was arguing against something I expressed that I wasn't? Stop acting as if I'm arguing for destroying everyone's freedom, i'm not, in any way. Possibly because they all died of cancer?

What about your child's freedom of choice to not get hit over the head?

I'm talking about when cigarettes were first produced and did not come with health warnings.

That again is a totally different thing to tobacco companies deliberately hiding that their product caused cancer. Back then people did not know the risks.

Using the argument that because something is arbitrary it shouldn't be enforced is flawed as basically everything is a matter of degrees. I agree that it's difficult to set a limit or to legislate around this area, but I do not agree that this difficulty should be a reason to have no legislation at all. Serious neglect of a child by their parent should call for government action, whether in the form of mandatory parenting classes or taking the child into social care. It isn't good enough to argue that it's the parents choice to raise their child however they want. I agree that it is indeed rea

Are you really that effing stupid to compare cigarrette to an online poker forum? And if not, are you really that stupid to argue that companies who sell life threatening products to their customers should not be made to tell their customers before they buy?

The whole point is that it shouldn't be your ****ing right as it's not you you are affecting.

I should have made it clearer that I was speaking hypothetically as if you did feed your kid crap all the time (over a reasonable limit).

If you feed your kid takeaways 5 times a week because of the freedom of choice crap, then I would say you're a pretty sucky parent.