Jump to content

Daniel Video Rant - Nov 20 2012 - Integrity


Recommended Posts

Isn't taking the money with the intention of increasing it and paying it back exactly what they did at FullTilt? The DOJ referred to it as akin to a ponzi scheme.

 

To make such a vast difference in your reaction on the basis of how each spent their money is a little nit picky. Yeah, Lederer bought houses and cars. Well, Lindgren spent his money on an expensive wedding immediately after Blackfriday and immediately after he took the $2 million in players' money from FullTilt. He didn't exactly elope. It's really just a difference in the ways they like to spend their money.

 

Also Lindgren hasn't made any kind of apology even though he hasn't been under any kind of legal pressure to remain silent. At this point, I'd have to say that an apology is too little too late.

 

I can't exactly criticize Daniel for making excuses for a friend because I do it myself all the time. That's what friends are for after all. But still, it isn't an even handed evaluation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's surprising the different veiws people can have of other peoples opinions..

 

There's already 6 pages at 2+2, soon to be 10 I'm sure.... First about "where is your blog", then moving onto arguing about the content.

 

Isn't a blog someones opinions and thoughts put down on paper, or in this case a video?

 

If you find value, or want to learn about someone's thought processes and values, taking the time to veiw the blog is a great tool. I haven't made a video blog, but have to speculate there's a good margin of time and expense used in putting that together.

 

Wether you agree, disagree, like, dislike, respect, hate, or what ever, it's your choice to spend time taking a look at Daniel's opinion. I respect putting his thoughts and values out there for everyone to critiique. Not many of us would do this, knowing all the backlash possible..

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a huge DN fan and I signed up here just to respond.

 

I disagree with Daniel's logic and false equivilance he employs in his video. His example of his baseball bet story only helps show how a man reacts to adversity versus how a child reacts.

 

I was especially offended by his assertion that people who call out Lindgrin were somehow uncool or that since the reason Lindgrin ripped people off was to repay other people he had ripped off it was somehow less egregious than ripping off people to buy cars/goodies. Does that mean that if you steal money from someone who is going to use the money to buy a car then it is not as bad as stealing money from someone who is going to donate it to charity? Are you freaking kidding me? This is the worst kind of mealy-mouth excuse-making.

 

In other words Lindgren needs to 1) own it. 2) make whatever arrangements to pay it back - anything else by either himself or his friends is air.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Daniel 1st of all, there are some people that look great bald, Kiddo grow that hair back.

 

Integrity is the main issue, Own up and take responsibility when ever you screw up and always try to make some amends to fix it even if it takes a long time. It doesn't hurt to try to make it up, it's the effort put into it. Any one with guilt issues, it will always eat away even when you try to resolve it. If you put heart into trying to fix it, the burden will lessen both in mind and soul. Saying I'm sorry means nothing unless you try to own it.

 

gl in Montreal don't party to too much :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's really no difference... if the person who lent the money in the first place had an understanding that the funds were for one thing and then used for another, it's dishonest of the borrower. How the borrower deals with it after the fact is important but would the lender ever feel comfortable giving a loan to the borrower again? Acknowledging the lie and making an effort to pay back show integrity but misleading the lender in the first place for whatever reason does not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Annie the **** Duke pulled that same stunt he would have lit her up like she deserved. It's obviously much tougher to rip into someone you have a close relationship with, but for someone who has the stature in the poker community that DN has, to want sweep this one under the rug kind of kills his credibilty to me.

 

You're either a liar/cheater or you're not...it's a pretty black and white thing, introducing gray areas for some but not for others is weak.

 

While I appreciate the thoughtfulness and honesty he put into the video, I disagree with the stance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmn - gotta say DN your integrity took a hit shilling that poker software Stacked many years back. Worst piece of poker software ever, IMO.

 

Disagree with Rose about the hair though - it was time to give in and shave it off, so good for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't taking the money with the intention of increasing it and paying it back exactly what they did at FullTilt? The DOJ referred to it as akin to a ponzi scheme.

 

There's a difference between "Leave your money here" and "Let me spend your money, I'll get it back later. Probably. Maybe".

Link to post
Share on other sites

The main point of DN's that I can wholeheartedly agree with is his assertion that private debts should remain private, not to be adjudicated on Internet forums by gossip-mongers. While some think those who have shown themselves to be untrustworthy should be publicly outed in to order to save others from being victimized, I think people should be more vigilant with their money/lending practices and refuse to lend money unless they can be assured that they will be repaid, not just because the prospective borrower was on tv a couple times and has a good reputation. Without that vigilance the lender is just a sucker and it seems that many in the poker community may not be suckers on the table, but certainly are off.

 

As for the million dollar ex. That is a poor attempt to justify theft. The examples would be more polarized if someone stole the money to pay for their sick kid's operation vs car, clothes, jewelry, etc. Stealing money with the hope of gambling it up to pay back sounds like something only a degen gambling addict would think up. Ask people not entrenched in the poker community what they would think of that plan and they would tell you that you need help.

 

Finally, if someone wronged you, don't go crying like a little girl to their friends indirectly on the Internet- handle your personal business in private and do what you need to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a difference between "Leave your money here" and "Let me spend your money, I'll get it back later. Probably. Maybe".

 

I'm just not sure where you see that difference. Lindgren stole $2 million of players' money from FullTilt about 2 weeks before Blackfriday. That he ever had any intent of returning it at all is probably an overly generous assumption. My assertion that he wanted to increase that amount to pay people back was me giving him the benefit of the doubt.

 

Two months after Blackfriday Lindgren certainly knew that it was players' funds that he had stolen. And it was two months after Blackfriday when Lindgren got married inviting many of the top name pokers players who presumably wined and dined on stolen player funds. It kind of reminds me of Sweeney Todd feeding his dinner guests meat pies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The main point of DN's that I can wholeheartedly agree with is his assertion that private debts should remain private, not to be adjudicated on Internet forums by gossip-mongers. While some think those who have shown themselves to be untrustworthy should be publicly outed in to order to save others from being victimized, I think people should be more vigilant with their money/lending practices and refuse to lend money unless they can be assured that they will be repaid, not just because the prospective borrower was on tv a couple times and has a good reputation.

 

 

Private debts should remain private as long as both parties conduct themselves with honor. But in EL's instance this post is a huge fail. Warning people about a thief's inclination towards theft is the very essence of the vigilance you advocate, not gossip.

 

How many more people in the poker world would EL be continuing to victimize without this "gossip"?

 

If no posts had ever been made about EL's behavior but you had heard about it anyway and a friend told you he was about to spot EL $25K, would you "gossip" or just let your friend get jobbed because they lacked vigilance?

 

Truly amazing how some seem to see more fault in the people pointing at the despicable thief/deadbeat than they do in the despicable thief/deadbeat.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Harkin-

 

There is a huge difference between advising someone you know not to lend to a poor risk and contributing to rumors and innuendos in public about someone you most likely don't know and will never know. EL and and any like him are not going to be trying to borrow from anyone on this forum, unless they already have a relationship of some sort. The vigilance I'm referring to might include requests for references, but again, that should be handled privately, not in a public domain.

 

My main point is that going public with complaints about private business never seems like the best option.

The concept of lending money to a gambler who needs more money to hopefully gamble and be able to pay back more people is flawed, at best, and sick, at in its worst form. If you don't enough confidence in yourself to collect what is owed to you, then don't lend the money.

 

Your attempt at equating gossip about people you don't know with telling your friend not to lend to a deadbeat is overreaching and inaccurate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Your attempt at equating gossip about people you don't know with telling your friend not to lend to a deadbeat is overreaching and inaccurate.

 

Totally disagree - when EL's behavior was exposed on the 2+2 boards his victims came out of the woodwork.

 

The "gossip" (as you call it) was a public service, keeping quiet about it was to enable the deadbeat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...