Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
Did they teach you in J School the first three rules of reporting? They are:

1. Accuracy
2. Accuracy
3. Accuracy

I think you failed because you keep stating inaccurate points. Your latest "If I say something about getting checks for sports bets, is it "necessary to consult" (your words) with the NGC? I guess so."

I'm going to say it again. I didn't call the NGC about getting checks from sports bets. I called only to ask if one could be paid with chips.

Now try to get something correct you pompous ass.

Okay, let me sit here for a moment and digest this. Deep breath. Okay, maybe my jargon is dated. That's possible. Let me consult someone who was in management. Okay, done.

It's possible my usage is dated, but I just checked with a former fairly high-ranking managerial person, and she said I'm correct but that possibly I should have used the British spelling "cheques" to make my writing clearer. Fair enough.

Mr. Mendelson, you do know that managerial casino personnel almost never refer to chips as chips? They refer to them almost exclusively as checks or cheques. In fact, they tell novices from non-novices by the others' usage. Novices use the word "chips." Non-novices use the word "check" or "cheques."

Thus, when I was referring to sports bets paying in checks, I was referring to what the general public (and the WSOP broadcasters) refer to as chips. But casino management refers to them as checks or cheques when in-house.

I stupidly assumed you (and everyone else) knew that. That's actually my fault, as it's my duty to make things clear.

So you were wrong. I was being accurate. I was using, however, casino management jargon, which was inappropriate to a general reading public.