Alan, when dealing with malignant narcissism you can't think in terms of normal folks. These people really believe everyone else is just like them. That is why they have no problem sharing their lack of ethics. They actually think others will think they are being clever.
I met Bob Dancer and Shirley in the late 1990's and early 2001 at festivals where we were speakers. The Wikipedia piece is a hatchet job on him. I have no idea why he divorced Shirley or if Shirley divorced him but I just don't see the sly comments about his square dancing and casino play as worth writing about. I know Wikipedia can go off the deep end. Some poster on it went after me with outright lies that actually got published (lies another poster nailed him for). Who was the poster? I have an idea, a well-known known book writer whose book has not sold all that many copies.
Competitors can write whatever they want about you. I've had that with Amazon. Whenever one of my books comes out a few of my competitors and their friends go apeshit with attacks. Sadly, most haven't read the books and put information in their "reviews" about which I never wrote.
I have a general policy with my reviews. I almost always write reviews of books that I have liked. I usually only write about movies I have liked. Products might be a somewhat different story. I also know that anything written on the Internet can last forever. One moment of being an idiot can define you forevermore.
The Internet is great but you have to be careful believing everything that's posted. I also think you have to always make an effort to control your temper.
I don't know if you've read Dancer's articles this last year or so, Frank, but everything in that Wiki piece is pretty much laid out by by Dancer about Dancer. I've read all of them. Everything in Wiki is directly taken from Dancer himself -- the COPD, the "best friend" hookup and so on. The only reach is where the Wiki author says Dancer got divorced because Shirley could no longer square dance or go into casinos. That she couldn't is true enough, but she may have divorced Dancer. Dancer has done and written some weirdly misogynistic things in the last few months -- bullying his new date to try water slides, posting photos of his new date as soon as he and Shirley were kaput (when he hadn't posted pictures of Shirley in his column). He's also flown cross country to enter into a partnership with a guy who ripped him off, although it was clear one duty of this guy was to collect Dancer's free play when Dancer wasn't there (what's the legality of this?).
Dancer's on tilt.
Last edited by redietz; 12-02-2013 at 10:34 AM.
I hate to say this but I haven't read a Dancer article since he left Casino Player (or Strictly Slots, I forget which). I know he used Shirley as a foil when he wrote for Casino Player or Strictly Slots. She wouldn't know something and he would set her straight. That's the opposite of my tact using my wife the Beautiful A.P. as the correct one and me as the foil (the fact is she usually is the correct one!). The fact that the stuff comes from his writings isn't the issue with me. If someone wanted to write an article or a post as you have done that is different than an encyclopedia entry. Maybe I am wrong about this but it just doesn't sit right with me.
Frank is correct: it was a hatchet job. The article was one sided and written only to harm Dancer. Having "facts" in the article doesn't alter what it is. Defending the article is something only an enemy or ignorant person could do.
The article was written to harm Dancer, true enough, but the facts (no quotes necessary if they're correct -- I took journalism classes, too you know) are culled directly from Dancer's own writing.
I'm not Dancer's enemy. What makes you think what I've said is all or the worst that I know about Dancer? It's not. Dancer's enemy is the editor who didn't edit his stuff.
I don't know that Dancer has an editor. And who knows -- maybe he over-ruled his editor and said that's what he wanted to publish?
But the question here is the Wiki article. It's a hatchet job, and it's pretty obvious that's all it ever was.
Now I take it a "hatchet job" is assembling the material that puts someone in a bad light and presenting it while leaving out the material that puts the individual in a good light. I thought about this, and if Dancer's own writings are the source material, I have a damned hard time finding any material that would put him in an interpersonal good light. Really, I have tried to think of a piece of his writing where you can say, "Aha, he's a good guy," or "Aha, he's sympathetic and understands others" or "Aha, he's not really an interpersonal ass."
And it's pretty damned funny -- I have read almost everything he's written, and I can't remember anything. You'd think somewhere he'd mention some charitable thing or non-angle interpersonal anecdote, but nope, I can't think of any. Arci (and Rob) -- help me out here. I'm sure he has to have written something that puts himself in a good interpersonal light -- maybe he taught people without selling software at the same time or maybe he shared his expertise before writing his book. His book probably did more damage to gamblers than help, as it kick started the casino responses that are gutting video poker to this day.
So the question is, if you read all of Dancer's material and used it as your source material, and what you were writing had to include interpersonal bio stuff, could you write an objective non-hatchet job that was "more true" than a hatchet job?
I'm still working on this. Maybe Dancer is a nice man and takes in stray cats? Nawwwww, doubtful. Maybe he's a moral guy who's never slept with a hooker? Scratch that. Maybe he occasionally works at a soup kitchen? Fat chance. Maybe he always says what he does and does what he says? Nope.
I'll keep working. You know, I always thought Arci's "malignant narcissism" comments were an overreaching stretch. But now that I look at this in the light of all of Dancer's writings, maybe not.
Last edited by redietz; 12-04-2013 at 07:48 AM.
I know doctors who have big personal problems... including divorcing their wives, and hitting their wives. But they were still great doctors.
I know lawyers who couldn't pay their own bills and went into bankruptcy, but they were great lawyers.
I think that Dancer might have his own personal problems, but that doesn't mean he hasn't been a great teacher of video poker.
Yeah, but people don't get to specify how their lives should be summarized. What you do to earn your living doesn't, by rule, overshadow or take priority over what you do during the rest of your life. If that were the case, plenty of serial killers were nice enough guys whose wikipedia entries, according to this train of thought, should emphasize what they did professionally. And while it may be the case that playing video poker maybe -- possibly -- should be Dancer's defining characteristic in a wikipedia entry, the possibility exists that it's wrong to simply define someone by the one thing he did well or the one thing that got him the most publicity. What is it about Dancer allegedly succeeding at video poker (and it is allegedly, according to some) that should override his failures at backgammon or sports betting? Why should the failures not be listed in a wiki entry? If someone is trying to evaluate Dancer as a "professional gambler," then those failures are absolutely key to the evaluation. Yet somehow, they don't get a mention.
As for Dancer being a great teacher of video poker, if someone's teachings result in casinos making more money than they would otherwise have made, I question the value of those teachings.
Last edited by redietz; 12-05-2013 at 11:05 AM.
Maybe the hatchet job should be against Bill Granoff if his personal life (ie his divorce etc) is the subject of the hatcheting. Professionally, Dancer did teach people proper strategy for playing VP. In the later years, you can question some of his "advantage plays" that have been discussed on this Forum, but you still have to recognize the strategy cards etc that helped others learn to play. So in the Dancer bio. it should not be a total hatchet job. In the Granoff bio, the other stuff is fair game.
Really? Does it really matter if he failed at backgammon when considering his knowledge and skill with video poker? If you really believe that, should I give back the two dozen or so awards I received over the years for news reporting from the Mortgage Bankers Association, the LA Press Club, the Associated Press Broadcasters Association, my Emmy, about a dozen Golden Mics from the Radio-TV News Association, my Janus Award, my award from the Society of Consumer Affairs Professionals in Business and all the others because I failed as a singer and dancer and a musician?Originally Posted by redietz
Okay, redietz, HOW DO YOU KNOW that Dancer's teachings result in casinos making more money? State your source -- and a source that the rest of us can verify.Originally Posted by redietz
It would be different, Alan, if the sole source of your awards was you and the company employing you. Basically, almost all of the material regarding "Dancer" has been generated by Dancer with no outside source, unless you count the LVA (which employs and sells Dancer). So what you're arguing is that Dancer's wiki entry should be an entry based solely on what he's had to say about himself. That hardly seems reasonable.
Second, I have no source for my saying I believe Dancer's current shtick makes more money for casinos than no shtick at all. The logic, however, seems pretty clear-cut. How many people actually win in 2013 at video poker? Almost none. So almost anyone drawn to play video poker because of Dancer's gig, or anyone drawn to playing more video poker because they have learned appropriate strategy, will lose. This means more income for the casinos than they would otherwise generate. If the game is a negative game, then popularizing the game aids the casinos. Teaching people to play a negative game they otherwise would not play is aiding the casinos. The basic questions are do I think that Dancer's teachings (1) hurt the casinos by turning 98% players into 99% players or (2) do I think his popularizing the game and making people believe they are well-trained leads to higher volume and more casino income? I think the latter.
Of course, if you have sources suggesting Dancer's presence has hurt the casino industry, let us know so we can verify them. Those sources should not be casinos employing Dancer to teach vp or casinos that advertise on his radio program, however.
Redietz I asked you this:
And you responded:Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
That's all I needed to read.Originally Posted by redietz
Dancer does not need to hurt the casino industry. I don't know if he ever said his goal was to hurt the casino industry. I thought he taught people how to play video poker better?Originally Posted by redietz
You're starting to troll.
The word troll is particularly interesting in that I assume you intend negative connotations. I think using the word troll says more about the insular nature of online interaction where you have cliques and isolated "communities" who don't want anything to disrupt their parochial interactions. So in that respect, I have great respect for anyone who trolls. Academic debate isn't about singing Kumbaya. As far as the attached idea that trolling is intended to provoke an emotional response, well, I'm pretty unemotional about Dancer. I don't even share the worst of the info or the juiciest of the gossip.
Now I have looked up the various definitions of trolling, and I'm trying to recall you using the word troll in regards to our dear departed friend, Mr. Singer, who by most definitions was the very definition of troll. But alas, I don't recall you referring to Rob as a troll, even though half his posts were specifically to induce emotional responses and to disrupt discussions. So I'm particularly honored that you have chosen me for this moniker.
I think one important consideration when reading all posts regarding Las Vegas is who is on casino bankrolls or has been on casino bankrolls and who is not. I am not and never have been. Mr. Dancer is and has been. I suggest anyone with opinions regarding casino gaming should at least raise a hand if he or she has been or is employed by casinos. Otherwise we have something far worse than trolling.
I have said it before, here: I have done certain work for casinos and casino companies and casino-related companies as a contractor, but I have never been "employed" by a casino.
Regarding your comments about Dancer: you have just about reached the "Rob Singer level" of targeting the man.
Dan--I don't get your point regarding whether one has been employed by a casino. I have been employed by several casinos and racetracks, and it hasn't in any way changed my opinion or thought regarding them. And most of my thoughts regarding casinos are negative. However, at least when they hired me I was now "the house", and like most "fat" corporations, they waste money liberally when it comes to things like legal fees. So while I was happy to take their money, it certainly didn't make me a shill for their benefit.
I sing the same tune whether I am selling a book, working for my publisher, appearing on television, giving seminars to players, consulting with slot companies, consulting with casinos and so on. One does not have to change when this or that entity is paying for your product; be that product a book, a television script, a consulting job, a seminar or a speaking engagement. It's not as if you tell the players one thing and tell the casinos another thing. For me it doesn't work that way at all.
Frank Scoblete, author of Confessions of a Wayward Catholic" --- http://tinyurl.com/kvux22v
Frank I suspect that you will be challenged on this. However, what a critic may not realize is that someone who is published and who also represents clients, can't talk out of both sides of his mouth for too long without being caught. And sometimes companies hire their critics to learn from them.Originally Posted by FrankScoblete
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote