To reveal the hidden answer, use your mouse to highlight the space immediately after the word "Answer" below.
[dukedaddiee]: u called me with ***king 2 4 off?
tms9054: nh can't believe u called with that
[dukedaddiee]: ***king dik
[dukedaddiee]: calls 1400 pre with that and flops nutz
[dukedaddiee]: what a ***king JOKE
tms9054: sry bro
MrMoose123: why can't I ever get free chips like that???
[dukedaddiee]: ill note u ***king dik
[dukedaddiee]: 2 4 off
tms9054: hard to believe he called with that
[dukedaddiee]: dude i raised to 1400
[dukedaddiee]: cant belive that BS u u***ing dik hope u run awful for months dude
[dukedaddiee]: gl rest of u
[dukedaddiee]: couldnt write anymore notes
[dukedaddiee]: bodog suks fills up to fast
[dukedaddiee]: ***king jerk
[dukedaddiee]: 2 54 off
...the future ban of male players entering the women's event at last year's World Series of Poker?
Assuming, as would seem to be the case, that it is illegally discriminatory for a place of public accommodation to forbid men from entering the tournament, it must surely also be illegally discriminatory to refuse them equal access to public events in the future on the basis of their legitimate participation today.
Suppose that some racist restaurant owner didn't want to serve blacks, but wanted to get around the anti-discrimination laws. So he says, "I'll serve you today if you absolutely insist, but if you do, then I'm going to ban you from the premises forever, because I'm free to take or reject the business of anybody I want to."
How does that even make sense? If Harrah's doesn't have the legal right to refuse access to a public event on the basis of sex, then it can't possibly have the right to ban that person from future events on the grounds that he accepted the open invitation. I can't imagine how a court, if asked to decide the matter, could come to any conclusion other than the obvious: The future ban is just a different means of practicing the illegal discrimination. There can't be any logical distinction between "You can't play today because you're male," and "OK, you can play today, but if you do, then because you're male, we will never let you enter one of our tournaments again." The perverse consequence of that approach would be that a place of public accommodation could freely discriminate on the basis of sex or race for a person's entire lifetime, as long as they didn't do it this one time.
That's just too bizarre to take seriously. If they really try it, I'd love to be the attorney bringing the suit. Seems like a slam-dunk win for the plaintiffs to me.
A few months ago I wrote about an endlessly frustrating experience with one of Bodog's cash-out methods, a prepaid Visa card. As a result, I can only see this email from Bodog as good news:
Cereus (umbrella company of UltimateBet and Absolute Poker) yesterday released two different versions of an announcement about an agreement with the Department of Justice as to release of players' funds. Some people have already noticed one key difference (deletion of language about third-party processors), but there are others.
While I was in Florida with Cardgrrl in March, somehow we got talking about refractive eye surgery (LASIK and other such procedures). I said that I would love to be free of glasses, but the life consequences of any significant visual loss are too terrible for me to be willing to risk it, even though the chance of such an outcome is small.
As I woke up this morning, on my radio was the tail end of an interview on the local public radio station's daily current-affairs show. The guest was Dan Deveau, an online professional player living in Henderson. I don't think I had heard of him before, but I was impressed. He makes a fine spokesman for the cause. He seems forthright and articulate, passionate but not arrogant.
A month ago I opined that the fountains seen through the "window" in the set of "High Stakes Poker" were not what they appeared, but were actually video footage played in the background, or added in post.