|
The message can be easily lost by how the messenger conveys it. Perhaps if he wasn't nasty and didn't attack people personally, he might be more well received.
The attitude conveyed is both unnecessary and counter productive to some good discussions which can be had on social media and on pace advantage on various topics including wagering strategy.
I'll give one clear example for those who may not be aware or are on Twitter much. Last month I wrote many people who attend the races do so with making a profit not being their primary goal. (The key was the word "primary.") I didn't just leave it there. I expressly added many people have as their primary motivation to attend the races things other than profit (socializing being just one example).
Never did I write their goal was to lose. Yet, ITP and others twisted those words to say I wanted people to lose. Then it got nasty because reading and critical thinking appear to have been abandoned.
I then ran a poll asking people to think about other people and vote whether a majority would be prefer to 1. Cash 4 of 8 races and make a small profit or have a small loss or 2. Bet one race and make a 100% profit. This poll had over 500 votes and came out 56% for option 2 and 44% for option 1.
The sample size was valid and the results proved my point. It was another perspective some people who bet every day or bet for profit appear unable to wrap their arms around.
I'll conclude by saying if someone doesn't like what another person writes or if it disagrees with their point of view, that should provide an opportunity to share viewpoints and in the end, agree to disagree and part peacefully. In the alternate, just leave it be.
As the late justice Antonin Scalia wrote: "I attack ideas. I don't attack people. And some very good people have some very bad ideas. And if you can't separate the two, you gotta get another day job."
|
